ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was asked—

Football Governance

Tom Greatrex: What her policy is on the future governance of professional football.

Helen Grant: I should explain to the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot be with us today, as she is in the United States.
	I continue to work with the football authorities in pressing for improvements in the game. They have made some very positive changes, notably to their governance and financial fair play rules, but I believe that they can and will make further progress. We intend to legislate if football fails in that important task.

Tom Greatrex: I declare my interest as one of the founders of the Fulham Supporters Trust, and I can increase the Minister’s burgeoning understanding of football by telling her that this has not been a great season for Fulham so far.
	When the Select Committee reported in 2011, it referred to some of the problems of the role of supporters in the game. In his response to the Committee’s follow-up report almost exactly a year ago, the Minister’s predecessor said that he would soon set up an expert working group, under the auspices of the Department, to examine the role of fans in the governance of football, but as yet that has not happened. Will the Minister tell me when exactly it will happen, so that fans can see that the Government are taking the agenda seriously and not just paying lip service to it?

Helen Grant: I am very interested in this issue. I have met representatives of Supporters Direct, and we are considering a recently updated proposal that we have received from the organisation in the last few weeks relating to the setting up of the expert group, which will enhance supporter engagement. I am keen to press on with this. I will continue to work with the Football
	Association and with football authorities, and will take the FA up on its offer to provide secretarial support for the group.

Damian Collins: Given the recent conviction of the former owner of Birmingham City football club for money laundering, the fraud convictions of the putative owner of Leeds United, and the fact that we still do not know the identities of the individuals who own Coventry City, does the Minister agree that a “fit and proper person” test should be applied to the owners of football clubs, and that it should be administered by the authorities and, if necessary, given the legal security of being underpinned by statute?

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend has made an important point, but I believe that the enhanced checks and requirements that have been introduced by the football authorities are making some difference. I am also hopeful that the Football Association regulatory authority will ensure that changes in club ownership are much more fully scrutinised.

Jim Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that 12 months ago her predecessor promised us that the Government would present proposals based on the Select Committee’s report? The current situation in Coventry is disgraceful: fans have to make a round trip of about 70 miles to Northampton. When will we see some real action to deal with that?

Helen Grant: I think that we are starting to see some action, but I agree that we need to see more. Last August the Football Association introduced reforms which included smaller boards and a new licensing system to deal with matters relating to ownership, finance and supporters. I think it fair to say that a start has been made, but more needs to be done, and if it is not done, we will legislate.

Broadband Infrastructure

Ian Lucas: What recent estimate she has made of the number of businesses that have secured contracts from (a) Broadband Delivery UK and (b) local authorities for broadband infrastructure development in England and Wales.

Edward Vaizey: Broadband Delivery UK has entered into a framework contract with BT and Fujitsu. There are 40 local authority projects in England with funding from BDUK, and the Welsh Government have one project in Wales. All the contracts have been delivered via BT. I am pleased to say that, under the super-connected cities programme, 70 suppliers have been registered, 300 vouchers have been awarded, and 1,000 more are in the pipeline.

Ian Lucas: In a recent report, the Public Accounts Committee said that local authorities were contributing £236 million more than the Department had predicted in its 2011 business case, and that the sole monopoly provider, BT, had contributed £207 million less. As the Minister responsible throughout the programme, does the Under-Secretary of State believe that that is an effective use of public money?

Edward Vaizey: I do. Ofcom confirmed yesterday that we now have the best broadband in the European “big five”, and the fastest roll-out of 4G in the world. We continue to press ahead with 5G, we have published our spectrum strategy, and we have one of the most formidable digital infrastructure programmes in the world.

Anne McIntosh: I commend my hon. Friend on the work that he is doing, but he no doubt shares my disappointment that Thirsk, Malton and Filey will have only 78% high-speed cover by 2015-16. Will the Government reverse their priorities to ensure that, with the help of NYnet’s excellent work, broadband will penetrate the hardest-to-reach areas in rural constituencies?

Edward Vaizey: North Yorkshire has one of the most advanced broadband programmes so far, with more than 75,000 premises already passed. The councils in north Yorkshire are to be commended for that. As my hon. Friend knows, we have awarded an additional £250 million in order to push out our programme for rural broadband to help rural premises and businesses.

Jonathan Edwards: Recently the Prime Minister was mocked by Chancellor Merkel for the slow progress in rolling out broadband across the UK and the number of not spot areas, many of which reside in my constituency. Although I accept that this is largely a devolved issue, what extra help can the Minister give the Welsh Government to ensure that when the Prime Minister next meets the German Chancellor he is not embarrassed?

Edward Vaizey: More than 100,000 premises in Wales have already been passed and the target is to reach almost 700,000 by early 2016. If the Prime Minister sees Chancellor Merkel again and wishes to discuss broadband, he can present her with the Ofcom scorecard, which shows that Britain’s broadband is better than Germany’s. I would not say that this was a case of schadenfreude—except that schadenfreude is the only German word I know.

Nick Harvey: Will smaller companies with innovative technologies get a slice of the action in reaching the last 10% of hardest-to- reach rural areas? To that end, although the money offered by DCLG is welcome, is there not a danger, if it must be match funded by local authorities at a time of funding crisis, that the process will be much slower than it would otherwise be?

Edward Vaizey: I hate to get territorial but the money has actually been offered by the DCMS not the DCLG. It is important that the money is match funded because having local authorities involved makes the programme even more effective than it already is, but as my hon. Friend knows we have a £10 million innovation fund for the last 5%, which we are hoping many young and nimble companies will apply for.

First World War Commemoration

Stephen Metcalfe: What plans her Department has put in place to ensure a suitable commemoration of the first world war.

Edward Vaizey: The Government will deliver a four-year programme to mark the centenary, focused around the themes of remembrance, youth and education. We will lead the nation in appropriate acts of remembrance and provide a framework for learning, community and cultural projects through a package of funded activity worth nearly £100 million.

Stephen Metcalfe: As part of our local commemorations, I am leading a project that will see schools, veterans organisations, sports bodies, clubs, societies and the wider community in Basildon and its two twin-towns of Heiligenhaus in Germany and Ville de Meaux in France come together to create a unique trilingual exhibition exploring social attitudes then and now called “Never forget”, “N’oubliez jamais” and “Niemals vergessen”. Does my hon. Friend agree that the commemorations offer an excellent opportunity to remember that however dark the hour, there is always light and hope to be found?

Edward Vaizey: This is becoming a multilingual Question Time. Having recently visited Thurrock and seen for myself the amazing cultural activity that goes on in my hon. Friend’s part of the world, I have to say that the innovation he talks about does not surprise me in the slightest.

Derek Twigg: Will the Minister say a little bit about the importance of the contribution of what were British empire troops—troops from Commonwealth countries of today? What exactly is happening to link up with other countries to commemorate and highlight their vital contribution in the first world war?

Edward Vaizey: We have an extensive engagement with Commonwealth countries and we are determined to acknowledge the role of the Commonwealth countries, recognising that the war could not have been won without them. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will write to the hon. Gentleman detailing exactly the activities we are undertaking with Commonwealth countries.

Robert Buckland: Will my hon. Friend work with me and the dedicated voluntary group Swindon in the Great War, which is doing everything it can to mark the significance of the centenary with commemorative events, but which is finding the process of obtaining funding a challenging one?

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend is a neighbour of mine and I know that there is a lot of cultural activity and innovation in Swindon. He will have many small community groups that will want to apply for funding, and I will certainly assist him as much as I can. The Heritage Lottery Fund is extremely keen to make the application process as simple as possible.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Minister join me in congratulating local communities who are taking initiatives to raise funds to commemorate the first world war, particularly those in the Shankill road in my constituency who are getting together with people in other communities to raise a suitable commemorative memorial in Woodvale park? That is a tremendous initiative and it deserves to be congratulated.

Edward Vaizey: The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. The remembrance activities must involve all communities, and we should be tremendously proud of the way in which the communities are getting involved. One of the important parts of the commemorations over the next four years will be to bring younger generations into these activities.

Chloe Smith: On that important point about younger generations learning about the almighty sacrifices that were made in the great war, will the Minister give us an update on the millions of pounds of funding he has put towards schools’ battlefield tours?

Edward Vaizey: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that more than £5 million has been set aside to enable secondary schools to visit battlefield sites. Over the course of four years, every secondary school in the United Kingdom will be able to send at least two pupils to visit the battlefields of world war one.

Chris Bryant: May I urge the Minister to think carefully about the contribution that Members of this House and of the other House made to the first world war? On 6 November 1914, Arthur O’Neill, a Member of this House, was killed at Klein Zillebeke while on active service. Four days later, Henry Parnell, a Member of the other House, and Bernard Gordon-Lennox had also been killed. They have a war grave at Klein Zillebeke. Would it not be a good idea to commemorate them in Belgium? Perhaps the Minister could mention this to any important Belgian visitors who might be coming here today.

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. It is important that we recognise the contribution to world war one made over a wide range by many different groups. Recognising the contribution made by hon. Members is particularly apposite.

Football Clubs (Supporter Engagement)

Stephen Doughty: What steps she is taking to increase supporter engagement with football clubs.

Helen Grant: Supporters are key to the success of any football club and I commend their active engagement in the sport. My Department works closely with Supporters Direct and the Football Supporters Federation, and will of course continue to do so.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the Minister for her answer. I should like to put on record my membership of the Cardiff City Supporters Trust and the Cardiff City Supporters Club. Given the importance of emblems, colours and club names to national heritage, what consultations does the Minister think should take place as a matter of course with supporters’ representatives if any changes to those elements are proposed? Does she think that that should form a key part of future licensing arrangements for football clubs?

Helen Grant: The role that supporters play is critical, and I am encouraging the football authorities further to develop their relationships with supporter groups. As
	the hon. Gentleman knows, financial support is made and supporter liaison officers are in place. The offer of secretariat support for the expert group that I have mentioned is also a welcome move, but more needs to be done.

BBC (Funding)

Barry Sheerman: What assessment she has made of the desirability of changes to the funding basis of the BBC.

Edward Vaizey: No assessment has been made at this stage. The review of the BBC’s charter will be the appropriate juncture at which to consider all aspects of the BBC, including how it is funded. We have not yet set out proposals for the timing, scope or process of the charter review.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister agree that, despite the BBC’s annus horribilis over the past year, the licence fee has delivered the finest broadcasting company in the world, and that we should defend it? Could we have a “fit and proper person” test for the chairman of the BBC? Is it not time that we had fresh leadership at the BBC?

Edward Vaizey: I am a great supporter of the chairman of the BBC Trust, to whom I think the hon. Gentleman was referring. I am also a great supporter of the BBC, and I echo what he has just said: it produces some of the finest programming in the world.

Philip Davies: The BBC is for ever telling us that the licence fee represents excellent value for money. If that is the case, does the Minister agree that it would have nothing to fear from moving to a voluntary subscription arrangement? Presumably, everyone would be queuing down the street to pay their subscription, if it provided such excellent value for money. We certainly do not need the criminal law to force people to pay it.

Edward Vaizey: One of the reasons that the licence fee represents value for money is that this Government have frozen it for the past four years.

Helen Goodman: Despite its disadvantages, the licence fee remains a good way of funding the BBC. Of course no one wants to see 50 people go to prison each year for non-payment, but given the financial implications of decriminalisation, this is clearly a matter to be considered alongside the other funding issues at the time of the royal charter renewal. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government will reject new clause 1 to the Deregulation Bill, tabled by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)?

Edward Vaizey: My Secretary of State is on record as saying that this is an idea that needs considering, although I do not want to get ahead of myself, because there is a question on the matter further down the Order Paper. She is also on record suggesting that the best way to consider it is as part of charter review.

Mr Speaker: The Minister may not have long to wait for the question that he anticipates.

John Leech: Does the Minister agree that any change to licence fee enforcement would go against the coalition agreement of 2010, which committed to a full financial settlement for the BBC up to the end of 2016-17, given that it has been estimated that the amendment, if passed, could cost the BBC £200 million a year in revenue?

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend illustrates the point perfectly. There are many complicated issues surrounding the debate that has started about decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee. It is important that all those factors are taken into account, which is why the Government’s position is that it is perhaps better to do so during charter review.

Betting Shops (Area Deprivation)

Alex Cunningham: What assessment she has made of the social and economic effects of betting shops in areas with high levels of deprivation.

Helen Grant: The Government continue to examine the relationship between area deprivation and the impact of betting shops as part of our ongoing review, which will report later this spring.

Alex Cunningham: Many of my constituents and I enjoy watching football and other sports on television, but we are sick and tired of betting ad after betting ad during every event under the sun. Coupled with the increasing number of bookie shops in communities, that is driving betting culture, particularly among young people, who are promised an easy fortune but do not get it. Will the Government do anything to cut the advertising and this escalation of betting promotion to protect our communities into the future?

Helen Grant: The hon. Gentleman raises a lot of important issues there, but I can tell him that considerable pressure is being kept on the industry. I met the chief executives of the big five bookies in December and January. We requested and they have complied with strengthened player protections. The Secretary of State has also asked the Gambling Commission to consider tougher and mandated player protections. She has also asked other regulators to review gambling advertising.

Bob Blackman: Given that more money is staked on the national lottery than is staked in betting shops across the nation, is that not a much bigger threat to deprived communities? Is it not better to have a betting shop on the high street than an empty shop, which is often the challenge?

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend needs to remember that betting and gambling are safe activities. Betting is legal and is enjoyed safely by many millions of people up and down the country. We just need to ensure that those who are vulnerable are properly protected. This is what the Government are determined to do.

Mike Kane: What analysis have the Government made of the link between betting shops and the explosion of payday loan outlets on our high streets?

Helen Grant: Betting shops tend to be located in areas of high footfall. It is not at all clear that there is a link between area deprivation and problem gambling, but our ongoing review will assess the available evidence. We will report later this year on that matter.

Clive Efford: Having stood shoulder to shoulder with the betting industry, the Government have been forced into a series of humiliating climbdowns in the Lords on virtually everything that we have been telling them that they must do—review of pre-watershed advertising, regulating spread betting, one-stop shop for self-exclusion and adopting the code of the Association of British Bookmakers as mandatory, having told us that that was unnecessary. I wonder whether the Minister ever feels that she is in office, but that we are running her Department. I have another instruction for the Minister: give councils the powers that they are calling for to limit the number of fixed odds betting terminals in their areas. Are the Government on the side of local people or of the betting industry?

Helen Grant: I am staggered by the shadow Minister’s statement. He complains about the number of bookies on the high street and about the proliferation of FOBTs, yet it was his Government’s Gambling Act 2005 and liberalisation over 13 years—their relaxation of the rules—that put the country in the position that we are in now. I am afraid that I will take no lessons from him.

Women’s Participation in Sport

Heidi Alexander: What steps she is taking to increase women’s participation in sport and physical activity.

Helen Grant: Our £1 billion youth and community sport strategy is delivering new ways to help women and girls develop a sporting habit for life. We have invested £2.3 million in a year-long pilot in Bury looking at ways to break down the barriers to female participation. I am glad to tell the hon. Lady that the pilot is producing some very good results.

Heidi Alexander: Back in February, the Minister made some remarks about the fact that different types of women may be attracted, or not attracted, to different types of sports and physical activity. Although I agree with the general point she made, I was worried by her simple characterisation of some sports as “feminine” and others as “unfeminine”. Does she regret her choice of words? Does she accept that many women would see her remarks as simply some sort of throwback to the 1920s?

Helen Grant: I caution the hon. Lady about believing everything she sees and reads in our newspapers, and I am a little surprised at her question. Nevertheless, I am happy to provide clarification by saying to her what I said to the press: we should be listening to what our women and girls want, and we should be giving it to
	them. We should not be prescriptive, but we should be listening. As a sportswoman myself, I believe that there is a sport out there for everyone. In addition, I think our sports governing bodies need to work harder and be even more innovative in attracting women. We also need to share best practice so that other sports can learn lessons from sports, such as boxing and netball, that are doing particularly well in attracting women.

Tracey Crouch: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Kent FA on its highly successful Goals for Girls event held in my constituency last Saturday and Sky Sports on covering it live? Is that not an example of how broadcasters should be showcasing women’s and girls’ sport, encouraging them to participate in all sorts of physical activity?

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I know that a considerable amount of football activity takes place in her neck of the woods. While she was attending her event last Saturday, I was attending a girls under-15s international in Maidstone, where England won 8-0. On her point about the media, if we want to see more women in sport and an increased profile of them, we need the media to do more. The BBC and Sky have upped their game since the last Olympics, with individuals such as Barbara Slater doing a lot more.

Caroline Spelman: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should take this opportunity to place on the record our great thanks to our successful Olympians and Paralympians in Sochi, particularly Lizzy Yarnold and Jade Etherington? This should be used to encourage more women to reach the top of their chosen sport.

Helen Grant: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. Our Olympians and Paralympians are making us very proud. They are brilliant role models in their own right and I know that they are inspiring a lot more women and girls in our country to take up sport.

Sport for People with Limb Loss

Alison Seabeck: What support the Government are providing for PE and recreational sport for people with limb loss; and if she will make a statement.

Helen Grant: Since this Government came to power, an extra 200,000 disabled people are playing sport on a very regular basis. Through Sport England, we are investing £170 million to improve sporting opportunities for those with disabilities, including limb loss.

Alison Seabeck: Given the success of our Paralympians in both the summer and winter games, and the inspirational effect they have on young amputees, does the Minister share my concern that NHS England is supplying either a sports limb or a standard limb to young people, thereby restricting their capacity to compete or take part in recreational sport? Will she agree to talk urgently to her colleagues in the Department of Health about that, because it is having a serious impact?

Helen Grant: I am certainly very happy to take up the matter that the hon. Lady raises. Increasing participation in sport for disabled people is a key priority for this Government and for Sport England. There is still an unacceptable gap between the numbers of disabled and non-disabled people doing sport, and we need to make sure that the gap closes.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Minister agree that skiers such as Kelly Gallagher and our Paralympians are a fine example of what everyone can achieve in this country?

Helen Grant: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Jade Etherington and Kelly Gallagher, and their guides, Caroline Powell and Charlotte Evans, are glowing examples of what can be achieved by sportswomen in this country.

Online Antisocial Behaviour

Iain McKenzie: What recent discussions she has had with social media companies on tackling online antisocial behaviour.

Edward Vaizey: I chaired a meeting with social media companies on 13 February to discuss measures to protect people when they are online. We confirmed our position that social media companies should respond quickly to incidents of abusive behaviour on their networks and ensure that they have measures to protect users. We intend to continue to work with industry on those issues.

Iain McKenzie: We have continually called on the Government to introduce legislation to deal with the epidemic of cyber-bullying that we are witnessing, so why do they not make it an offence in its own right?

Edward Vaizey: Working with social media companies in a flexible, responsive way is the best way forward. We have covered a whole range of issues, including age and identity verification, the reporting of abuse, adjudication, auditing, filtering and funding; we can cover all of those comprehensively and flexibly through dialogue.

Philip Hollobone: Adam Simmonds, the police and crime commissioner for Northamptonshire, is determined to tackle online crime, and particularly the issue of child victims. He set up a child exploitation prevention team, which is a national lead pilot. Will the Minister work with colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that Government funding for such pilots can be directed at local police forces, and not just at regional or national crime agencies?

Edward Vaizey: I will certainly bring my hon. Friend’s concerns to the attention of the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims; in fact, this afternoon, he and I will chair the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, which brings together a range of stakeholders to talk about these issues.

2022 World Cup (Migrant Workers)

John Mann: What discussions she has had with FIFA and the Football Association on the rights of migrant workers in Qatar employed in preparations for the 2022 World cup.

Helen Grant: While there have been no direct discussions with the FA or FIFA, the Government have regular discussions with the Qatari authorities on issues including human rights, and welcome their pledge to investigate the treatment of migrant workers.

John Mann: May I suggest that the Minister pulls her finger out and starts raising this issue? The football industry seems far more concerned about the weather during the World cup than the fact that hundreds of Nepalese and Indian workers have died constructing the sites. Even more grotesquely, perhaps, those who get seriously injured are left financially destitute precisely because they are injured. Will the Minister raise this issue properly, as the Government should?

Helen Grant: Indeed, the issue has been raised by colleagues in the Foreign Office, but we will of course continue to encourage the Qatari authorities and other interested parties to do more. We need to make progress on improving the living and working conditions of migrant labourers. Of course, we stand ready to support those efforts where we can.

Local Newspapers

Nicholas Dakin: What information her Department holds on the number of local newspapers that have closed since May 2010; and what steps she plans to take to support such newspapers.

Edward Vaizey: The Department does not hold that information, but our local press plays an incredibly valuable role in local communities, and we appreciate the challenges facing the sector. We have a number of policies to support local newspapers.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he have a view on the number of local papers that have, like the excellent Scunthorpe Telegraph, since May 2010 moved from being daily newspapers serving their community to being weekly newspapers serving their community? What impact does that have on communities?

Edward Vaizey: I understand that the Scunthorpe Telegraph has made that move and that, as a result, its circulation has gradually risen by a small amount. The Government have restricted the amount of local papers that councils can put out, relaxed media ownership rules, and continued to have statutory notices in local papers, so we do want to support local papers where we can.

Meg Hillier: Is not one of the big tragedies resulting from the loss of local newspapers the impact on journalistic training and the quality of scrutiny of our councils? Is the Minister having discussions with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government about this important matter?

Edward Vaizey: I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s point that we rely very much on the quality of local journalism to hold local councils to account, and it is important that,
	where possible, savings are made and money continues to be invested in local journalism. My local newspaper group, which publishes the
	Oxford Mail 
	and the
	Herald, 
	tries to invest as much as it can in local journalism because it recognises that that is what sells its papers.

Contemporary Arts

Sarah Champion: What steps she is taking to support contemporary arts. [R]

Edward Vaizey: The Arts Council invests funding to nurture and champion talented artists across the country. Over the life of this Parliament, this Government are investing nearly £3 billion in the arts.

Sarah Champion: The film maker, Steve McQueen, learned his craft with the support of small-scale contemporary arts organisations, as do the majority of our artists. Does the Minister agree that for our internationally regarded arts scene to flourish, grass-roots contemporary arts organisations need the security of Government funding to maintain the significant contribution that they make both to our economy and to our culture?

Edward Vaizey: I certainly do, and I am pleased to see the amount of funding that is going to the Centre for Chinese Contemporary Art, which the hon. Lady used to run. Further to my earlier reference to my visit to Thurrock, I was delighted to see the new artists’ studios that have opened there to support artists from the local area.

Topical Questions

Kate Green: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Edward Vaizey: I have already mentioned in passing the £250 million superfast extension programme and our European pre-eminence in all matters broadband. Since we last met, we have published our spectrum strategy, and both the Secretary of State and the Sports Minister have travelled to Sochi to support the extremely successful Team GB, which had the best results in any winter Olympics for 90 years.

Kate Green: Trafford Park in my constituency is due to be connected to superfast broadband as part of the Greater Manchester rural broadband programme, which is vital for the many businesses located on the park. What can the Minister do to ensure that the programme remains on track so that every business in priority areas of economic growth is connected following the completion of the BDUK programme?

Edward Vaizey: I will strain every sinew to ensure that the programme remains on track. That is my pledge to the hon. Lady and I am pleased to say that our programme is now ahead of schedule, that BT has completed its £2.5 billion commercial roll-out and that we have the best broadband of the big five in Europe.

Mr Speaker: The Minister’s endeavours will be a challenge to the most vivid of imaginations.

David Rutley: In Macclesfield, we are rightly proud of our rich silk heritage, which will be highlighted during the 200th anniversary of our Sunday school building, which is part of the Silk Museums Trust. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend tell the House what steps are being taken to celebrate the heritage of our traditional craft industries?

Edward Vaizey: Of course I can. My Department works with the Heritage Crafts Association and other bodies on the Craft Industry Board set up by creative and cultural skills to support the economic growth of the craft sector. I am also delighted that the craft sector has been chosen as one of the groups in the second phase of the apprenticeship trailblazers and that, at the end of last year, we managed to list at grade I the Queen Street Mill in Burnley, which is a late 19th-century textile weaving mill. I thank my hon. Friend for that question.

Harriet Harman: It is the right of each and every child to have the experience of, and opportunities in, culture and the arts, and it is important for our economy too. So it is of great concern that at GCSE, fewer children are sitting art and design. Music is down 9% and drama is down 13%, and we see the same happening in A-levels. How can we nurture the next generation of talent and how can young people fulfil their potential as human beings and engaged citizens, never mind their creative potential in the arts, if they do not have the chance in school? Does the Secretary of State’s assertion that the Government are making great strides to ensure that the arts are a central part of every child’s education not sound increasingly out of touch?

Edward Vaizey: I met the Minister for Schools only this week to discuss the success of our cultural and music education plans. We are the first Government to introduce a national music education plan. We set aside hundreds of millions of pounds to create music hubs, to extend the In Harmony scheme and to support the teaching of music in schools. The Secretary of State for Education has, through his own personal initiative, supported initiatives such as Shakespeare in schools and heritage schools, and the Arts Council has its bridge organisations. There is a lot going on in cultural education and in music education, and I urge the right hon. and learned Lady to have a look.

David Davies: Does the Minister agree that the BBC’s duty to provide fair and impartial coverage needs to reflect the views of the many people who question the so-called consensus on climate change and that the BBC must stop acting like the public affairs department of Friends of the Earth?

Edward Vaizey: I think that my hon. Friend has made his point very effectively.

Nick Smith: Power sellers are purchasing thousands of tickets to top musical and sporting events online within seconds and selling them on minutes later for massive mark-ups. What are the Government doing to stop this distortion of the market and to stop fans being ripped off?

Helen Grant: We do not have any plans to introduce legislation, which is what I am constantly asked about. We want all the various organisations and events as well as everyone else connected with ticketing to look at the facilities that are available and I am confident that that will happen so that people can enjoy events in the right way and access tickets at a fair and reasonable price.

Christopher Pincher: In a few weekends’ time, Tamworth council will hold its 10th St George’s day festival, which is a great day out for all the family and a boon to local businesses. Feel free to come along, Mr Speaker, if you wish. Will my hon. Friend support that initiative and encourage other local authorities to follow Tamworth’s lead, which makes the best use of our heritage assets and encourages local people to take a greater interest in the local history and traditions?

Edward Vaizey: The Tamworth St George’s day festival is renowned throughout the country, if not the world, and I hope that many councils across the country will be looking at how Tamworth uses St George’s day to highlight its incredible heritage assets.

Tom Greatrex: The Minister responsible for the arts will, I am sure, be aware that the critically acclaimed film “Under the Skin”—which, incidentally, had its UK premiere at the excellent Glasgow film festival last month—was one of a number of UK co-productions in recent times. What assessment has the Department made of the impact of precluding co-productions from funding through the enterprise investment scheme on the British film industry?

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. We support co-production across the world and have signed many co-production treaties over the past three years. I am not quite clear how those treaties are inhibiting the creation of British films; I rather thought they were supporting them. If he wants to write to me in greater detail, I will respond more fully.

Nick de Bois: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Following the Minister’s January meeting with the Tourism Alliance, she was keen to secure a cross-Departmental council with the aim of boosting Government action to boost tourism growth. Will she advise the House on what progress has been made in setting up that council?

Helen Grant: I remain keen to set up a tourism council at the earliest possible opportunity. A large amount of work has been done and I have asked my officials to work with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to consider how best to achieve that.

Sheila Gilmore: Many of my constituents are concerned about the advertising of gambling through broadcast media, particularly at times when children and young people
	see it—that is, the kind of advertising that makes it seem easy to win big money very quickly. What steps is the Minister taking to tackle that problem?

Helen Grant: The Secretary of State recently made it quite clear in a statement and a speech that we have asked the appropriate regulators to look into gambling advertising in the context of the rules, regulations and guidelines.

Duncan Hames: Wiltshire council has more than met the match-funding requirements for Government support for broadband so far. I welcome the superfast broadband extension programme, but will the Minister assure me that that early commitment will count in favour of the council and not against it when the Government seek match funding for the latest scheme?

Edward Vaizey: We want councils to match fund the money we have put up for the superfast broadband extension programme, as it is important that they are involved. I recognise the amazing work that has been done in Wiltshire, and I have visited to see the work being done on broadband roll-out. I hear what has been said.

Bill Esterson: My constituents are concerned about the impact a third betting shop will have on a small geographical area in Formby, and they are amazed that there is nothing that they or their councillors can do to prevent that shop from opening. Will the Minister listen to people up and down the country who are concerned about the impact of too many betting shops and will she allow local communities the powers to prevent the spread of such shops?

Helen Grant: I always try to listen. These are important issues. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that local authorities have good powers at their disposal to control the location and number of betting shops through article 4 directions and use of their licensing conditions, but of course I shall continue to listen.

Philip Davies: According to the recent health survey, the only two forms of gambling in which the poorest people are more likely to participate than the richest people are bingo and scratchcards. Given that fact, can the Minister justify allowing 16-year-olds to buy scratchcards when for any other form of gambling the minimum age is 18? Will she review that urgently and ensure that buying scratchcards is something that can only be done by 18-year-olds?

Helen Grant: I am aware that my hon. Friend has considerable knowledge in this area. I am happy to look into the issue of scratchcards and come back to him.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Disabled People

Alex Cunningham: What assessment he has made of the cumulative effect of the Government's policy programme on disabled people.

Sandra Osborne: What assessment he has made of the cumulative effect of the Government's policy programme on disabled people.

Nia Griffith: What assessment he has made of the cumulative effect of the Government's policy programme on disabled people.

Michael Penning: The Treasury regularly produces analysis of the cumulative impact of coalition changes, including welfare. However, even independent bodies such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies do not feel that results can be broken down reliably for the disabled community.

Alex Cunningham: In my Stockton North constituency, 860 disabled people have been referred to the Work programme, but only 60 have found employment as a result. Does the Minister agree that a 7% success rate is appalling? What will he do to ensure that Work programme contractors provide greater specialist support for disabled people to help them into work instead of abandoning them?

Michael Penning: There was only one Government who abandoned disabled people on the Work programme and that was the previous Administration, and that is the truth. We will not allow that to happen. We will work very closely—[Interruption.] Opposition Front Benchers can try to shout me down, but it is the truth, and everyone knows it is the truth. Yesterday I was in Leeds where we talked to employers, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, to give them the confidence to employ people with disabilities and long-term illnesses.

Sandra Osborne: The Government finally seem to have woken up to the scale of the problems that Atos has in delivering the work capability assessment. Why then has it been awarded the personal independence payment contract when it is clear that it has such serious capacity problems?

Michael Penning: We are doing something to address the Atos WCA contract that the previous Government brought in. We are working with it to get it out of that programme, because we are not happy with the quality. We will work with it and Capita in ensuring that PIP produces exactly what it needs to do.

Nia Griffith: A disabled constituent of mine, in common with many others, has been called in four times for assessment by Atos and had his entitlement docked. He has gone to appeal, had a successful result, and had it reinstated four times. Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about setting a limit on the number of times that Atos can call in people for a reassessment in any given period? It is a total waste of public money as well as causing immense distress to constituents.

Michael Penning: That is exactly what I have been looking at. In particular, I have been looking at tribunal cases, as we have a backlog of cases on the WCA, the policies before PIP and the disability living allowance. I am looking carefully at what is happening. Some can actually
	go for up to 10 years. That is what I intend to do for people who are desperately in need of the benefit, so that they are not called in as much as they are now.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Minister agree that it is really important that everyone in this country can fulfil their potential and do really well in the workplace? To that end, what is being done to engage employers and help disabled people do really well in business?

Michael Penning: As I have said, we have a programme going round the regions at the moment—it was started by the Prime Minister in London—to give employers the confidence to take on employees and to break the myth that it is more expensive and more difficult to employ disabled people or people with long-term illnesses. We all know that they will give more loyalty, dedication and commitment than anyone else in the work place.

Julian Huppert: I welcome the written statement from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), that discretionary housing payments can be made available for long-term or indefinite periods for disabled people. Will the Minister ensure that that applies across the board so that people do not have to keep being reassessed when there is no realistic prospect of them recovering?

Michael Penning: That is exactly what I am looking at now, as I alluded to in my answer to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). We want to ensure that when someone has gone to appeal and won at the tribunal, they are not called back in, because there is a suspicion that that is vindictive. We will ensure that that does not happen.

Duncan Hames: The introduction of personal independence payment requires applicants to complete a demanding form—I am sure that the Minister would call it rigorous—so what assistance is his Department providing to people who are blind or partially sighted in completing the paperwork?

Michael Penning: PIP is replacing disability living allowance, less than 6% of the recipients of which ever had a face-to-face assessment. At the moment, around 90% to 95% of claimants are being called for a face-to-face assessment, which is much too high, and we will bring that down as much as possible. We are working with the relevant lobby groups, particularly the Royal National Institute of Blind People, to ensure that the information is available in a way that can be used across the board.

Julie Hilling: This morning I received a letter from my constituent Tracy, a distressed and house-bound disabled woman who put in a claim for PIP last August but is still waiting for a home visit. She has been told that she might have to wait another six months. It is yet another example of how disabled people are being failed. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Michael Penning: People are waiting too long for PIP assessments, partly because of the number being called for face-to-face assessments—between 90% and 95%—
	which is much too high. The policy was for that to be about 70%, so I think that it could be reduced further. We are looking carefully at whether it is absolutely necessary for that number of people to be called for assessment. When a face-to-face assessment is not needed, PIP will be granted without it.

Occupational Gender Segregation

Bridget Phillipson: What assessment she has made of the effect of Government policies on occupational gender segregation.

Jennifer Willott: We asked the Women’s Business Council to look at how we could tackle the barriers women face in the workplace and when choosing a career. It published its recommendations in June last year, and we are working closely with businesses and across Government to turn them into reality.

Bridget Phillipson: It is worrying that the number of female apprentices has dropped, and much more needs to be done to attract women into traditionally male-dominated sectors, such as engineering and manufacturing. When will we see some progress from the Government on that?

Jennifer Willott: The Government are very proud of our record on apprentices. Over this Parliament we are funding a quarter of a million more apprenticeship places. In fact, more girls and women are taking up these opportunities than boys and men, particularly at the higher levels, where over 60% of apprentices are women. There is an issue with the proportion of women taking up more traditionally male apprenticeships, which is something I will be taking up with the Minister for Skills and Enterprise, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock).
	Women in Public Life

Simon Burns: What initiatives she has taken to enhance opportunities for women in public life.

Helen Grant: The Government have enabled political parties to use positive action, should they so wish, to increase participation by under-represented groups. We have extended to 2030 their ability to use women-only shortlists. We have also set an aspiration that 50% of new public appointments should filled by women by the end of this Parliament.

Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend accept that it was a Conservative, Mrs Pankhurst, who campaigned for votes for women; that it was the Conservative party that gave all women the vote; that the first woman to take her seat in this House was a Conservative; and that it was the Conservative party that provided this country’s first woman Prime Minister? We will take no lessons from others about our commitment to enhancing opportunities for women. As I am sure you will appreciate, Mr Speaker,
	the Unites States will have an opportunity in two years’ time to elect a woman as their next President—Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Helen Grant: Yes, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our party has a proud record on all these areas. However, we recognise that we are on a journey and that it is far from complete. It is therefore very important that all parties continue to prioritise that very important issue.

Fiona Mactaggart: I wonder whether the Minister can help me. Since 3 February I have been asking various Government Departments about the gender breakdown of public appointments they make and which ones are paid. All the Departments consistently refer me to a table published by the Cabinet Office that makes no reference to which roles are paid. Will she ensure that we know how many women appointed to public office by this Government are paid and how many men similarly appointed are paid?

Helen Grant: I know that this is an important issue for the hon. Lady and that she raised it during the international women’s day debate. The Government have a very good record on public appointments. I will do my best to find that information for her. I am aware that she has made a freedom of information request. If she does not receive an answer in the next few weeks, I shall be very happy to look into the matter further.

Penny Mordaunt: Will the Minister join me, and I am sure many hon. Members in this House, in congratulating Boni Sones OBE on her achievements in founding and running Women’s Parliamentary Radio? Her work will be archived at the London School of Economics and has led to the book “When There’s a Woman in the Room”. Does the Minister agree that Boni Sones deserves this House’s sincere thanks for encouraging women to participate in public life in the UK and overseas?

Helen Grant: I am very happy to endorse and agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. Boni Sones is a fantastic role model in her own right and has done considerable amounts for the representation of women in Parliament.

Gloria De Piero: Will the Minister join me in condemning the Financial Secretary’s comment this week that there are no women on the Monetary Policy Committee because
	“appointments are made on merit”?

Helen Grant: I am not aware of the exact details of what my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has allegedly said, but as the hon. Lady has already heard, this party has a proud record in relation to women’s progression. The coalition has driven through a number of policies to promote women and to allow them to develop on merit, and I am sure that that process will continue.

Gloria De Piero: When Labour was in government there was always a woman on the Monetary Policy Committee. Again, I invite the Minister to condemn the comment by the Financial Secretary that
	“appointments are made on merit.”

Helen Grant: It is obviously a matter for the Bank of England to make its own appointments. However, these are issues for everyone: for Parliament and for all businesses. We must do whatever we can to make sure that women progress and get into positions of power, and I am in no doubt that that process will continue if we all work together.

Philip Davies: By maintaining the law that allows the Labour party to use women-only shortlists for selecting its candidates, the Minister must accept that that means either that Labour party selection committees are inherently sexist and turn down the best woman for the job in favour of a man, or that we are not getting the best person for the job in the seats concerned. Can she tell us which one of those it is?

Helen Grant: On women-only shortlists, we are a democratic political party and we do not dictate to our grass roots. We know that some of our associations have already chosen women from their own shortlists, but this is a matter for them to decide on.

Women in Work

Chi Onwurah: What steps she is taking to support women in work.

Jennifer Willott: There are record numbers of women in work and we are taking strong action to support them, including by extending the right to request flexible working from June this year, introducing a new system of shared parental leave from next April, and supporting families through the new tax-free child care scheme from next October.

Chi Onwurah: For international women’s day last Friday, we held a What Women Want at Work event in Westgate community college. Women from across the constituency raised many issues, including zero-hours contracts, sexism, stereotypes and the minimum wage, but the No. 1 issue was child care and how it prevented mums from going to work and those in work from having children. Will the Minister now back Labour’s pledge to increase free child care for three and four-year-olds to 25 hours?

Jennifer Willott: This Government have done a huge amount to improve the child care situation for women in work. We have increased the number of hours that are available free for three and four-year-olds and extended that to more deprived two-year-olds. Under universal credit, we will increase the amount that is refunded for recipients of child care tax credit from 70% to 85%. As I said, from next year we are introducing tax-free child care for parents of children under the age of 12. We are also increasing the number of child care places, and this is having an impact. For example, the cost of child care, particularly after-school child care, is starting to come down in England.

Caroline Spelman: The renaissance in manufacturing, particularly in the car industry, means that there is a skills shortage that could be reduced if more women chose that career
	path. Will the Minister encourage other companies to act like Jaguar Land Rover, going into secondary and primary schools to advocate such career paths?

Jennifer Willott: The right hon. Lady is right. This is very important. The Government are doing quite a lot of work to try to encourage the number of women going into science, technology, engineering and maths. The Government have a project with the Royal Society on diversity in STEM and we are supporting a scheme of STEM ambassadors going into schools to encourage people to take up those subjects. Of the 25,000 ambassadors, 40% are women and 10% are from ethnic minorities, so the Government are doing as much as they can to try to increase the number of women in these areas.

Women in Work (Overseas)

Andrea Leadsom: What discussions she has had with her overseas counterparts on steps to promote the role of women in work internationally.

Jennifer Willott: We participate in the EU presidency Gender Ministers meetings, which enables us to discuss all the goals in the Europe 2020 strategy and the Beijing platform for action, including women’s employment.
	Only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities spoke at an international event at the Commission on the Status of Women, organised with the Tanzanian Minister of Equalities, specifically to promote women working in the science, technology, engineering and maths industries.

Andrea Leadsom: I thank the Minister for that answer. Although I agree with the Financial Secretary that appointments should be made on merit, does the Minister agree that City regulators’ record on appointing high-calibre women is pathetic, and that if they were to identify those women, that would go a long way to promoting women in work internationally and they would be very good role models?

Jennifer Willott: The hon. Lady is quite right. We definitely need to increase the number of women in senior roles, not only in the City and financial institutions but across the country more generally. This Government have done a huge amount of work with Lord Davies to increase the number of women on boards and we are starting to see a significant increase in the number of women in those positions. At the beginning of this Parliament, the figure was 12.5%; it is now more than 20% and we are on target to hit 25% by next year. I agree with the hon. Lady, however, that this is an important issue that we need to tackle.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 17 March—All stages of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure, followed by motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Pensions Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Pensions Bill, followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to mesothelioma.
	Tuesday 18 March—A general debate on Ukraine, followed by motions to approve statutory instruments relating to combined authority orders, followed by motion to debate three EU proposals on criminal procedural rights.
	Wednesday 19 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
	Thursday 20 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Friday 21 March—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 24 March will include:
	Monday 24 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Tuesday 25 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
	Wednesday 26 March—Motion to approve a statutory instrument, followed by remaining stages of the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Bill [Lords], followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 27 March—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 28 March—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 20 and 27 March will be:
	Thursday 20 March—A debate on the contribution of women to the ordained ministry of the Church of England.
	Thursday 27 March—A debate on the seventh report of the Transport Committee on local authority parking enforcement, followed by a debate on the eighth report of the Transport Committee on access to ports.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.
	Reports this week have suggested that the House might prorogue at least a week earlier than the recess date the Leader of the House has announced, because there is so little business in the Commons. Will he confirm whether that is the case? If so, why will he not give us some more Opposition days so that we can set out our alternative to this clapped-out, zombie Government?
	Last year, Eurosceptic rebels on the Tory Back Benches tried to amend their own Queen’s Speech in order to deliver a referendum on EU membership. In a panic, the Prime Minister was forced into setting an arbitrary
	date for an in/out referendum, proving that he is desperately trying to manage his own party rather than acting in the national interest. While the Prime Minister is banging on about Europe, Opposition Members are clear that our national interest is best served by remaining in Europe, focusing on tackling the cost of living crisis and providing an in/out referendum should there be a further transfer of powers. Is the Leader of the House expecting his Eurosceptic rebels to attempt to amend the Queen’s Speech again, and if so, what else will the panicking Prime Minister be forced to concede to buy them off this time?
	Last week, the Leader of the House was unconvincing when he tried to claim that the Government take account of votes in the Commons, despite the fact that they have ignored more than 20 of them. Later this afternoon, the House will vote for a second time on a Back-Bench motion to end the badger cull. Will he now confirm that if the House again votes to end the cull the Government will abide by the will of the House?
	Yesterday, it was revealed that a report on the Work programme that was ready six months ago is being suppressed by Ministers, because its contents would embarrass the Government. The report reveals that nearly 50% of employers found the programme ineffective and criticised the support that participants received. So far, more than £1 billion of public money has been spent on the Work programme, yet people who go through the scheme are more likely to return to Jobcentre Plus than to get a sustainable job. The Department for Work and Pensions is acquiring a reputation for incompetence and cruelty. Given the importance of tackling long-term unemployment and the public money spent on this programme, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Work and Pensions Secretary to make a statement on the serious allegation that the report is being withheld?
	When the Chancellor gets to his feet for the Budget statement next week, the British people will wonder why, despite his self-satisfied spin, they still do not feel any better off. In 2010, he predicted that the economy would grow by 8.4%, but it has grown by just 3.8%. In 2010, he told us that he would balance the books by 2015, but we will instead have a deficit of nearly £80 billion. He told us that he would get Britain working, but there are 1 million young people without a job, and under-employment is at the highest level since 1992. He told us that we are all in this together, but he has cut taxes for millionaires, while working people are £1,600 a year worse off and thousands are forced to turn to food banks to feed themselves at the end of the month. It is not a recovery if millions of people do not experience it.
	On Saturday, the Deputy Prime Minister told his spring conference, without any sense of irony, that “consistency matters in politics”, so how are the Liberal Democrats doing? On Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) failed to move a new clause in his name in relation to the hospital closure clause in the Care Bill, despite claiming to have led the opposition to it. Despite all the Lib Dem handwringing in public, when it came to it, not one Liberal Democrat voted to remove the draconian ministerial powers from the Bill. At the Lib Dem spring conference last weekend, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) said that the new homes bonus was “incoherent”, “unfair” and “absurd”. Who would have thought that
	he is actually a Minister in the Department responsible for it? The Liberal Democrat party president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), has called the bedroom tax “wrong and unnecessary”, although the Deputy Prime Minister reaffirmed his strong support for it in the House yesterday. It is clear that what we get with the Liberal Democrats is the rhetoric of Arthur Scargill and the voting record of Mrs Thatcher. It is no wonder they were beaten into fifth place in a by-election last week by the Bus Pass Elvis party. Come the general election next year, we will all just be waiting for the Liberal Democrats to leave the building.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response. On the date of Prorogation, she is getting a bit confused. We have published the calendar, including the recess dates, which are not changing—Prorogation is not a recess; it is Prorogation—and as she knows, the date of Prorogation is subject to the progress of business.
	We are using less time than we expected for two reasons. First, the House of Lords is not insisting on its amendments, but accepting the amendments that are made in this House. As far as the Government are concerned, that is a good thing, because we are securing agreement on Government legislation and consuming less time in ping-pong than would otherwise be the case.
	The other reason, which the shadow Leader of the House ought to acknowledge but does not, is that there is a zombie Opposition. Yesterday, the Intellectual Property Bill came forward on Report and Third Reading, and not one Labour Back Bencher spoke. The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is a major piece of legislation, had its Second Reading a fortnight or so ago. Three Labour Back Benchers spoke all day, one of whom was a Labour Whip, hoisted rapidly on to the Back Benches in order to say something.
	We have a zombie Opposition who do not have anything they want to say. That deals with the hon. Lady’s point about Opposition days. The days have been allocated, although we will happily talk about the matter. There is nothing else that the Opposition are able to talk about, but they may be able to think up something. However, there were many weeks earlier in the Session when they had the chance to debate the economy and they did not do so. We will have a chance to debate the economy in the Budget debate and we will find out what the position really is.
	That will be very interesting, given what has been said in the last couple of days. The shadow Business Secretary said on the “World at One” programme:
	“Most of our thirteen years in office we didn’t have a debt, er, a deficit,”—
	he was a bit confused about that—
	“because we hadn’t had the financial crash.”
	That is complete nonsense. The shadow Chancellor said:
	“I don’t think Governments should spend money they haven’t got”.
	The Opposition are in a parallel universe. They ran a deficit not just in the immediate run-up to the last general election, but from 2002. They did not mend the roof when the sun was shining. They spent money that they did not have. One pound out of every four that
	they spent went on borrowed money. That was a disgrace, and what was the result? The result was that 7.2% was wiped off the value of the economy of this country. That is the equivalent of £3,000 for every household in the country.
	That is why we are pursuing the long-term economic plan, which will no doubt be the centrepiece of the Budget debate that I have announced. We are reducing the deficit that Labour left us, taking 3 million people out of income tax altogether, freezing fuel duty, capping welfare, delivering the best schools and skills for young people, creating more jobs, and backing small business and enterprise. We are doing those things. That is the debate that will matter most in the business that I have announced. It would not be appropriate during the Budget debate to have an Opposition day. The Opposition will have the chance to have their say. Perhaps they will explain why they are in such denial.
	The House voted for the European Union (Referendum) Bill by 304 votes to none in this Session. It was not a Government Bill, but a private Member’s Bill. The House knows perfectly well that it was not a coalition commitment. The same principle will apply in the next Session. If the ballot affords it, there will be an opportunity for a Member to bring forward a private Member’s Bill in the same way.
	I do not know where on earth Labour is coming from on that issue. The moment the leader of the Labour party got up and talked about it, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said that it was a “shoddy compromise”. The Institute of Directors was more or less right when it said that
	“the EU has to change, and it makes sense to put such changes to the British people.”
	The Government have already put it into legislation that there cannot be a further transfer of powers to the European Union without a referendum and the consent of the people of this country. As a Conservative, I believe that the people of this country are looking not simply to have that but to have a renegotiation of our relationship with the rest of Europe. They want a focus on the things we want to achieve, such as completion of the single market, competitiveness, free trade and working together on issues that matter, while at the same time ensuring that we in this country have greater freedom and sovereignty to decide on issues that we are responsible for, and that do not need to be agreed and delivered through a European Union mechanism. We are clear that an EU referendum for that purpose is necessary, but that is not the same as what the Labour party is offering.
	The shadow Leader of the House also asked about the Department for Work and Pensions, but that is a bit rich coming from the Labour party, which every time has left government with unemployment higher than when it came to office. Labour Members are now complaining about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and a Work programme that has supported 1.36 million people. There are 1.6 million more jobs in the private sector. There are nearly 1.3 million more jobs than when Labour were in office. For a Department that is concerned with getting people into work, that is a record of which it can be proud.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. As always, large numbers of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I simply remind the House that we have a statement on school funding followed by two statements by Chairs of Select Committees on the reports of those Committees. We then have what I advise the House is a very heavily subscribed debate under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee on the badger cull. The consequence of all that is that there is a premium on brevity, and I ask colleagues to ask single, short supplementary questions without preamble, and for the Leader of the House to provide characteristically pithy replies.

Mark Harper: May we have a debate in Government time on the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000? My right hon. Friend will have seen yesterday’s Court of Appeal judgment, which from my reading seemed clearly to misunderstand what this House and the other place set out in primary legislation. I am glad the judgment will be challenged, but a debate would be helpful so that the House can fully understand who makes the law—this place, or judges.

Andrew Lansley: I agree with my hon. Friend that it was a disappointing decision, and the Government will appeal it in the Supreme Court. We have been clear that preserving the confidentiality of communications between the Government and the heir to the throne is an important principle to be protected. Indeed Parliament endorsed that approach when it passed the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, amending the Freedom of Information Act. The case obviously relates to earlier papers, but the House is clear about that principle.

Diana Johnson: Humberside police has the highest number of child rapes reported to it of anywhere in the country, with 176 cases reported last year, alongside 193 adult cases. The Ministry of Justice has cut funding to the Hull rape crisis centre, and if it closes, people will have to travel 60 miles to Leeds for face-to-face specialist crisis counselling. May we have a debate on the Government’s commitment to rape crisis centres and their secured funding?

Andrew Lansley: If I may, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Ministry of Justice to respond to the hon. Lady on that point. She will know of the Government’s commitment to this issue, and in the action plan published on Saturday she will have seen further references to our support for action relating to domestic violence against women and girls, and to issues relating to her point. She will also know that Ministers at the Ministry of Justice will respond to questions on Tuesday if she is in her place.

Andrew Bridgen: May we have a statement on the Government’s position regarding whether the recent environmental statement consultation on HS2 complied with Standing Order 27A? Does my right hon. Friend believe that it could be subject to a complaint?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend, and the House, will have noted that this week it was settled that the assessor appointed by House authorities will summarise the responses to the consultation report to Parliament by 7 April. The Standing Orders Committee has already ruled that the environmental statement is compliant, which I hope will be helpful to my hon. Friend.

Caroline Lucas: This week a new report shows that an EU-wide target of just 30% of energy from renewables by 2030 would create an extra 500,000 jobs, yet UK Ministers are leading the charge against strong and binding renewable targets. May we have an urgent debate on the number of jobs the UK will miss out on, and on the need for the Government to change their position?

Andrew Lansley: I am sure the hon. Lady, if she has not already done so, will read the written ministerial statement on the European Environment Council. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs both attended and, rightly, pursued ambitious targets. They argued that it is very important for us not to have binding renewables targets, because it is necessary for each country to meet not just the challenge of climate change but supply and security requirements.

Peter Bone: I understand that the Prime Minister’s excellent policy to have an in/out referendum by 2017 cannot be introduced as Government legislation, because it is being blocked by the Liberal Democrats. May we have a statement from the Leader of the House next week on whether he would welcome a Back-Bench amendment to the Queen’s Speech asking that the EU referendum be debated in Government time?

Andrew Lansley: If I may speak frankly to my hon. Friend, the Government’s objectives are put into the Queen’s Speech—that is what we set out as a Government. On behalf of the Government, I have to say that, if the Government do not agree that there should be an EU referendum Bill, then we do not agree that. I am afraid it is then for the House to decide by other means.

Nigel Dodds: May we have a debate soon in Government time on the operation of the National Crime Agency? It is not operating in the way it should in Northern Ireland, because of issues in the Northern Ireland Executive, where the nationalist parties are blocking it. Criminal assets cannot be seized in Northern Ireland and there are real dangers for the UK as a whole—it is a national issue. May we have a debate on what the Government are going to do about that?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He will recall our disappointment—and I imagine his—that the legislative consent motion was not forthcoming to enable the NCA’s remit to extend to Northern Ireland. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but he knows that this is a matter of continuing concern to my hon. Friends at the Home Office. We will continue to consider the matter and update the House.

David Heath: High energy prices affect everybody, but the worst affected are those who live in rural areas off gas grid. They are unable to avail themselves of the dual fuel discount and rely on liquefied petroleum gas or fuel oil. May we have a statement from an Energy Minister late next week to set out what will be done as a result of the package that
	I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will want to announce in his Budget statement to help precisely those people?

Andrew Lansley: I understand what my hon. Friend is looking for. I cannot anticipate what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will say in the Budget statement, and therefore whether there will need to be a statement to follow it, but I will, if I may, draw this matter to the attention of Energy Ministers. They completely understand the point he is making and it has been a matter of discussion and debate in this House. It is something we continue to keep in mind.

Julie Elliott: The Leader of the House has announced that there will be a motion to approve a statutory instrument on 26 March. Will he advise the House on the subject of that statutory instrument?

Andrew Lansley: No. That is provisional business and I will announce it next week.

Anne McIntosh: May I request an early debate, in Government time, to discuss a risk assessment of the Flood Re replacement of the statement of principles? I understand that the Prime Minister is organising a review of many of the exceptions, but it has come to light that leaseholders will not be covered. Leaseholders do, of course, own their own property, and it is unacceptable that their insurance will go up prohibitively and put them in a higher risk bracket that in most likely circumstances they will not be able to afford.

Andrew Lansley: I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to respond to my hon. Friend on that point. In addition, issues relating directly to this matter are being debated during the House of Lords consideration of the Water Bill, so we may have an opportunity to consider them when the Flood Re provisions come back from the House of Lords.

David Wright: Businesses in Telford want a link between the M54 and the M6 northbound and the M6 toll road, and are concerned about the fact that the project is being significantly delayed. May we have a statement from a Minister about the plans that are being made?

Andrew Lansley: I am very interested in this subject, because I often use, as it were, that road—

Chris Bryant: As it were?

Andrew Lansley: It is very helpful to have the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber. We would all fall into error without him, would we not? We fall into error with him, actually.
	I travel up the M6 on my way to Anglesey on the old Telford road, and it is frustrating not to be able to make the connection between the M54 and the M6. I will speak to my colleagues at the Department for Transport, and I shall be interested to hear what they have to say.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the support of the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) for my campaign
	for a link between the M6 southbound and the M54? I should welcome a debate on the issue, and I invite the Leader of the House to join me on the new road link at any time.

Andrew Lansley: I may have an opportunity to stop over in my hon. Friend’s constituency. When I was last there, I had a very good time.

Graham Jones: Can the Leader of the House explain why the Secretary of State for Education has not made a statement on the raising of the participation age? According to statistics from the House of Commons Library, a significant number of young people have been abandoned and are not in education, employment or training, although the law says that they should be.

Andrew Lansley: I think that our proposals for young people are very positive. We have made clear that they should not be in the position that the hon. Gentleman has described, but I will of course speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education so that he can respond to the hon. Gentleman and look into the issue.

Paul Uppal: Given the news that the new Jaguar Land Rover engine plant next to my constituency is creating 750 skilled jobs, and Sainsbury’s is creating 200 in my constituency, may we have a debate about the role of volunteers, jobcentres and colleges in the upskilling of employees in their new positions as the economy continues to grow?

Andrew Lansley: That is a good point. When we point out, rightly, that 1.6 million more people are in private sector employment, we should bear in mind that that is more than just a big number. A great many specific companies are creating jobs such as those to which my hon. Friend has referred, and that is a very positive development, especially when jobs in this country—such as those being created by Jaguar Land Rover—are a result of successful competition in global markets.

Nick Smith: We learnt today that G4S was repaying more than £100 million following its overcharging for electronic tagging. May we have a statement from the Justice Secretary about this corporate chicanery?

Andrew Lansley: I recall that we did have a statement from the Justice Secretary at the time when the failings of the companies concerned were identified. He made clear our determination to secure redress for the taxpayer, and I pleased to say that it is evident that he succeeded in that regard.

Stephen Barclay: May we have a statement on the proposed sale at auction of Wisbech magistrates court? One taxpayer- funded body, the Ministry of Justice, is selling it at a reduced rate because a second taxpayer-funded body, Cambridgeshire police, is refusing to vacate it as a sitting tenant, thus preventing a third taxpayer-funded body, the local authority, from redeveloping the site, and therefore not offering the taxpayer value for money.

Andrew Lansley: I know that this matter is important to my hon. Friend’s constituents in Wisbech. The Ministry of Justice negotiated for some time with Fenland district council, which then withdrew its offer. The Ministry decided that sale at auction was the best option, but the auction did not proceed because an offer was received from a local developer at what it considered to be an acceptable market price. It is likely that the sale will be completed imminently, but I have asked the Ministry of Justice whether the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara)—who is responsible for the courts and legal aid—could discuss the issue with my hon. Friend as a matter of urgency, in order to establish the position.

Derek Twigg: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has been kind enough to arrange for the responsible Minister to reply to me on the personal independence payments, where problems are growing by the day—I have more and more cases—but surely the time has now come for the Leader of the House to arrange for the Secretary of State to come here and make a statement on the problems with PIPs and what he is doing to sort them out?

Andrew Lansley: I think the hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that we are making progress with the transition to PIPs and there are clearly issues that have to be resolved to make that happen. I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions and see what further update they can give the House on the progress being made in dealing with those outstanding issues.

Julian Huppert: To mark yesterday’s 25th anniversary of the web, Tim Berners-Lee called for a digital Bill of Rights, something my party also called for at its recent spring conference. Will the Leader of the House make sure time is available for such a Bill to be debated, and could he persuade the Queen to include it in her speech?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know that I am not in a position to anticipate the contents of the Queen’s Speech.

Chris Bryant: You did last year.

Andrew Lansley: I did not.

Chris Bryant: You did so.

Andrew Lansley: I was interested in what Tim Berners-Lee had to say. My hon. Friend will recognise that it is a legislative challenge to contemplate such a thing, but it is important to understand how we can secure the rights of people using the internet and the protections they are looking for while at the same time making sure that it is the bastion of freedom I think it was always intended to be.

Richard Burden: Will the Prime Minister be making a statement to the House following his visit to the middle east? If so, does the Leader of the House anticipate that being on Monday or a different day? Secondly, given that debates on the middle
	east in Westminster Hall are regularly over subscribed, is it not time that the Government put, in Government time, a full day’s debate on the Israel-Palestine question?

Andrew Lansley: I am not presently anticipating a statement by the Prime Minister and I do not think it is customary for there to be statements following every visit the Prime Minister makes. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Prime Minister makes a great number of visits, including substantial numbers of trade missions, as he has to Israel and many other countries, and we do not make statements as a matter of course.
	There has been a wide range of debates in Westminster Hall and elsewhere on the middle east, including most recently on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, but so far as the Israel-Palestine negotiations are concerned, I am not aware of the House having had any recent opportunity for a debate. However, he and other Members who seek to have such a debate could of course approach the Backbench Business Committee.

Christopher Pincher: May we have a debate on science and technology skilling, because over 30% of the 200 businesses I have polled in my constituency were concerned about the science and technology skills of their new recruits? A debate would enable us to discuss how we can improve those skills and help businesses in places like Tamworth, which has an unemployment rate of just 2%, find the resources they need.

Andrew Lansley: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is very important. He will recall the initiative just last September of a £400 million fund—£200 million from the Government matched by £200 million from the private sector—for university science departments to develop world-class facilities so that Britain can meet the science industry’s demand for highly skilled young people. In my constituency, only last week recruitment was taking place for the first entry to the university technical college in Cambridge, which is offering courses and places focusing on life sciences training for young people, and similar things are happening in other places. We need these developments, and we are very much aware of the demands coming from industry for those kinds of skills. I hope in Tamworth and elsewhere we will increasingly be able to support the places that are required.

Madeleine Moon: The Keogh review looked at operations and other procedures that revise or change the appearance, colour, texture, structure or position of bodily features. May we have a debate on why the review makes no mention of the damage, disfigurement and permanent scarring that can result from tattooing and piercing, an area in which there is very little regulation of those without the skills and ability to carry out those procedures?

Andrew Lansley: I confess that I have not had an opportunity to look through Bruce Keogh’s review in detail, although I was probably responsible for initiating it. I will look at it, and I will check with the Department of Health as to its position on this and ask it to respond directly to the hon. Lady.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Given the situation in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, the Leader of the House will be aware that the tourism trade has been affected on the peninsula. May we have a debate on this in Government time? The effect has been devastating over half term, and Easter is nearly upon us. We are going to have to make plans to ensure that everyone in the UK understands that the peninsula is open for tourism and business.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am very pleased that the railway line through Dawlish will reopen by 4 April, a fortnight earlier than was previously expected. If an opportunity arises for a debate, I suspect that it is more likely to be on the Adjournment than by other means, but it would be helpful for the Government and for Members to make it clear that the south-west will be open for business, including tourism, this summer.

Stephen Timms: Will the Leader of the House answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) about the Work programme evaluation report, whose existence was revealed yesterday by “Channel 4 News”? The report apparently points out that people who are out of work on health grounds are getting a particularly raw deal. When will it be published?

Andrew Lansley: I confess that I do not know when it will be published, but I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions and ask them to reply to the right hon. Gentleman.

Jason McCartney: May we have a statement on the future of children’s heart surgery units? Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today’s NHS England report, which confirms that the Leeds heart surgery unit is safe and running well?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I will join my hon. Friend in welcoming today’s report. It is important that children’s heart surgery units should be safe, and that any past failings in the standard of care that they provide should be identified and dealt with. This report is not the same thing as the review of the future of children’s heart surgery centres, which was conducted not on the basis that the existing units were unsafe but on the basis of determining how the highest clinical standards could be sustained in the future. That review has yet to be completed by NHS England, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will want to report to the House when that moment arrives.

Jim Shannon: The number of those needing life-saving organ transplants continues to rise, but the number of donors is staying at the same level. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on this vital, life-saving matter?

Andrew Lansley: I am able to tell the hon. Gentleman that organ donation rates have risen by 50% since 2008. There were two reviews under the last Government. Also, transplant rates have increased by 30% since 2008. That is encouraging, and it is partly a result of investment in transplant nurses. As he will know, the relationship between skilled staff and the family at the point at
	which the question of donation arises is an important one, and I hope that we will be able to make further progress on that.

Rehman Chishti: As the Leader of the House will know, I have introduced a Bill to increase the maximum sentence for those who cause death while driving while disqualified, from the present two years to 14 years. May we have an urgent statement from the Ministry of Justice on what is being done to address this issue?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a statement, but I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about this, and that the Secretary of State for Justice feels very strongly about these issues. He will be answering questions in the House on Tuesday, and perhaps my hon. Friend will be in his place at that time to ask him about this.

Helen Jones: Following the passage of the legislation earlier in the week, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the future of district general hospitals? Warrington and Halton hospitals have already lost their vascular services; a review of maternity services is now under way; and nearby Whiston hospital continues to have financial problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and I would like some reassurance from the Minister that our local hospital will not have its services downgraded or removed, as we have seen previously under this Government.

Andrew Lansley: The legislation passed earlier this week does not threaten district general hospitals. It secures a commitment to the fullest consultation to enable us, if necessary, to reconfigure services on the basis of clinical quality as well as finance. Under the 2009 special administration regime of the previous Government, the process was finance-driven, not quality-driven. I am astonished at the effrontery of the hon. Lady getting up to talk about a vascular services review that started under her Government—as far as I am concerned—and about Whiston hospital, which was one of a number of unsustainable private finance initiative projects put in place by the previous Government. They had no idea where the money was going to come from to pay for that from within the local economy.

Oliver Colvile: I was recently approached by a constituent who expressed concerns that Plymouth city council is granting planning permissions for pop-up shops to sell what are generally known as legal highs. As my right hon. Friend knows, Plymouth is a university city with 30,000 students in it. I have great reservations about selling these legal highs. May we have a debate on the matter so that we can have a better understanding of what Government policy will be?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Planning control, as he knows, considers the land use impact of different types of development, but does not generally regulate the sale of particular items inside shops. The Home Office, however, is taking a comprehensive approach to tackling this reckless trade, working closely with the Local Government Association and trading standards. My hon. Friend will be encouraged that the
	Minister for Crime Prevention has commissioned a review to see how we can enhance our response, including possible legislative responses, alongside better health promotion and education.

Andrew Love: This week, sadly, sees the third anniversary of the start of the Syrian conflict, and yet we seem no further forward today than we did a year or two years ago. The international community, including the United Kingdom, bears a heavy responsibility for this. May we have a debate in Government time so that this House can explore all possibilities to start the international community along the course of a peace settlement?

Andrew Lansley: We all share the evident sense of deep disappointment expressed by the hon. Gentleman at this third anniversary about how damaging the situation in Syria has been to the people there and to international peace. He will recall that the Foreign Secretary made a statement on Monday, 24 February, which included reference to the situation in Syria and ongoing questions there. I cannot promise a debate at the moment. It is something that is regularly reported to this House, and if time were to be available for a debate at this stage, I know that it is something that the Backbench Business Committee would certainly want to consider.

Bob Blackman: Recently, a large cargo ship was apprehended by the Israeli navy with a record haul of rockets being transferred from Iran to Gaza. Yesterday, a record number of rockets were launched from Gaza into Israel. Given that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Israel for the first time as Prime Minister, may we have a wide-ranging debate on the middle east, including our relations with Israel and the sanctions to be imposed on Iran?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I will not repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love). There are Members throughout the House who might seek to initiate a debate with that broader scope.

Simon Danczuk: The unmanned level crossing at Smithy Bridge has not worked properly since it was installed. Local people have been inconvenienced, and there is the potential for safety risks. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate on Network Rail’s ability to manage such projects effectively?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a debate immediately, but I recognise the issues. Issues relating to level crossings more generally have come to the fore. Network Rail has a considerable programme of investment. It has been straightforward recently about the failings that have occurred with level crossings and with its approach to the safety concerns expressed about such crossings. I hope that that is changing. If I may, I will take the opportunity to ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport about this and ask them to respond to the hon. Gentleman directly.

Robert Halfon: Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 1174 about bingo taxation?
	[That this House believes that bingo plays an important role in the community; notes that Harlow Mecca Bingo has 54,000 members; further notes that despite being a soft form of gambling, bingo is subject to a gross profits tax of 20 per cent, despite all other forms of gambling being taxed at 15 per cent; and therefore urges the Government to reduce the bingo tax so that it is in line with other forms of gambling.]
	May we have an urgent debate, with a full House, so that we can support the 54,000 members of Harlow Mecca Bingo and ensure fair taxation for bingo clubs, in order to boost bingo across the country, to boost employment and to boost prizes?

Andrew Lansley: I have seen my hon. Friend’s early-day motion. It is a pity it was not tabled earlier in the Session, as it could have been early-day motion 66—that would have been even better. I will take his question as a further application to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot anticipate what the result will be, but he will of course have opportunities to raise these issues during the Budget debate.

Jim Cunningham: May we have a debate or a statement on the Highways Agency, particularly the way in which it manages temporary road schemes? Businesses at Tollbar End in Coventry, where there is a three-year scheme, have been badly affected because people have been held up while going to work in the morning. Some businesses have said that if they had known it was going to take this long they might not have invested in Coventry. May we have a statement, and will the Leader of the House get the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) to respond to the issue, as I raised it with him last week in the Department for Transport?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will recall that Transport Ministers will be responding to questions here again next Thursday but, as I wish to be as helpful as I can, I will ask them to respond directly to him about this scheme. Transport schemes often take much longer than we might imagine they would, but it seems that this one has taken a long time.

Jeremy Lefroy: May we have a statement on communications by Action Fraud with my constituents, whose cases are referred to it and they then hear nothing?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a statement but I will try to make sure that I get an appropriate response from Ministers, particularly if my hon. Friend is able to give me additional details.

Julie Hilling: Last Friday, more than 100 women attended my “Labour Listens” event in my constituency. They were deeply concerned about the sexualisation and objectification of women, which is still common in the media, exemplified by The Sun’s page 3. As the Government seem to be struggling to fill
	their time, may I help them by suggesting that we have a debate in Government time about the sexualisation of women?

Andrew Lansley: I am pleased that the hon. Lady was able to celebrate international women’s day with women in her constituency. She raises an important issue. Some of the most damaging effects of objectification of women are evident in some of the violence against women and girls, which of course was the subject of the further action plan that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published on Saturday. We do not have the immediate prospect of a debate on these issues, but I hope that she recognises that in the sense I have outlined we are addressing some of the abuses that result.

Charlie Elphicke: May we have a debate on banking? In the light of recent events, the House should particularly explore whether The Co-operative Group has
	“the ethics of responsibility, co-operation and stewardship”
	claimed in 2012 by the Leader of the Opposition or is simply a very badly run institution with appalling corporate governance?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right; many Members will be very disappointed by this situation, particularly given that, not very long ago, the Leader of the Opposition was talking about the ethics and responsibility of the Co-op—it is a pity that it came to all this. Many of us have a sense that we are having to deal with so many of the abuses in the banking system in the past. The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 will be very important in that respect, and I hope that some of the principles that this Government are putting in place for future conduct in the banking system will be fully embraced in the governance of the Co-op.

Chris Bryant: All the scientific evidence now agrees that concussion can be fatal, yet the Rugby Football Union, the Welsh Rugby Union, the Football Association, the premiership and the governing bodies of many of the other sports in this country are in complete denial about the danger that is posed to many of their players, particularly young players. I do not want a debate on this, because the danger is too serious; I want the Leader of the House, now that we are getting on so well, to organise, with me, the setting up of a parliamentary commission of inquiry into concussion in sport, so that we can save people’s lives.

Andrew Lansley: I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman that. I recognise the problem; obviously, I had a health interest over many years, and on a number of occasions
	I remember neurologists describing some of the difficulties to me, and I think that some of those doctors have been at the forefront of making the case to some of the sporting bodies that the hon. Gentleman talks about. If I may, I will refer the issue to my friends at both the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to see if they can facilitate a response to his points.

Martin Vickers: On Monday, I attended the annual Westminster gathering of the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions, and heard both of its optimism for the future and its concerns. Leisure parks and piers are vital ingredients of our seaside resorts, and the best of them can be found in Cleethorpes. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate to consider how best the Government can encourage and support our seaside towns?

Andrew Lansley: I am very glad that those representing leisure parks and piers were able to be here at Westminster. Those who watch our proceedings in the House sometimes might not realise the sheer volume and extent of interest in what goes on in the Palace of Westminster far beyond the debates in the Chamber. My hon. Friend is right about the issues for coastal towns, which he understands so well. That is why we created the coastal communities fund of £23.7 million in 2012 to help coastal towns and villages provide training and employment opportunities. In August last year, we announced that that fund would be increased to £29 million, and that it would be extended until 2016. That in itself is a manifestation of the Government’s support for the issues that my hon. Friend raises.

Nick de Bois: In manslaughter cases in which a single punch to the head has resulted in death, we are seeing absurdly low sentences, as permitted under sentencing guidelines. Obviously, I want much tougher sentences. Will my right hon. Friend agree to give the Chamber the chance to debate this very serious issue?

Andrew Lansley: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. I think that the subject may be in the scope of debate on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. I encourage him to raise these issues; it is important for Parliament to set out its expectations regarding sentencing guidelines. The Bill will, I hope, be an opportunity for the issue to be debated.

Mr Speaker: Order. I thank the Leader of the House and colleagues for the very timely progress that we made in this session.

School Funding

David Laws: With permission, I would like to make a statement about the action we are taking today to deliver fair funding in English schools.
	The school funding system that we inherited is unfair. Previous Governments knew that the system was unfair but failed to act to reform it. For too long, the school funding system has been based on historical data that were out of date and no longer reflected pupils’ needs. That has resulted in a system that is opaque, overly complex, and, frankly, unfair to pupils, parents and teachers.
	Sometimes, similar schools just miles apart can be funded at very different levels, merely because they happen to be in different local authority areas. In other cases, schools with many disadvantaged pupils can end up being funded at a level that is well below that of a nearby school in a more affluent catchment. For example, a school in Birmingham in which only 3% of pupils receive free school meals gets higher funding per head than a school in Shropshire in which over 30% of pupils are eligible for free school meals. That unfair and inefficient allocation of funding to pupils stops us making sure that all children get the best possible teaching.
	Many right hon. and hon. Members have campaigned for fairness, and the coalition has made it clear that it not only recognises the problem but will act decisively to address it. I pay tribute to the many hon. Friends who have campaigned strongly on the subject for many years: my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), for Worcester (Mr Walker), for Norwich South (Simon Wright), for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), for Gloucester (Richard Graham), and for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), and many others.
	I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who tells me that she first raised the issue 13 years ago in her maiden speech. Most of her campaigns deliver success over a shorter time scale. I hope she will be pleased with the announcement today.
	We have already made more progress than any recent Government in moving towards a fair funding system. We have made significant progress at a local level, where we inherited an unnecessarily complicated system. Our reforms for 2013-14 and 2014-15 mean that the system is now fairer, simpler and more transparent, with at least 80% of funding now allocated on the basis of the need of each pupil within a school. These local reforms represent a significant step forward, but we now want to make funding fairer at the national level by addressing the distribution of funding between local authorities.
	The Government announced in the spending review last summer that they would consult on how to allocate schools funding in a fairer way, and we will now do this. Today I can confirm that in 2015-16 we will take the first huge step towards delivering this fairer national funding. This will be the first time in a decade that funding has been allocated to local areas on the basis of
	the actual characteristics of their pupils and schools, rather than simply on the basis of historical levels of spending.
	Given the importance to schools of stability and certainty in these difficult economic times, we have decided not to set out a multi-year process of converging all local authorities towards a single funding formula. We have concluded that the right time to do this would be when there are multi-year public spending plans, so we can give greater certainty to schools. But the case for action is so strong that we intend to act immediately—I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) will be pleased to hear this—to deliver a substantial £350 million boost to schools in the least fairly funded local authorities in the country. We will be able to achieve this—Opposition Members will welcome this as well—without any local authority receiving a cut to its per pupil schools budget. The extra money will be allocated in April 2015, for the 2015-16 financial year, delivering in this Parliament, and not, as previous Governments have done, talking and then delaying until the future. No local authority or school will lose from this proposal, but around four in 10 areas will gain. We are able to deliver this significant boost by using money from within our protected schools budget and because of additional money from the Treasury. This is only the start of the transition to fairer funding and eventually a national funding formula, but it is the biggest step towards fairer schools funding in a decade.
	Today, the Secretary of State and I are publishing a consultation on fairer school funding in 2015, and I will explain briefly our proposals in this document. To allocate the additional funding fairly, we are proposing that for 2015-16 every local authority will attract a minimum funding level for every pupil and school. We propose to set a minimum funding level for the basic amount that all pupils should attract; for deprived pupils; for pupils with English as an additional language; for pupils with low levels of attainment on entering school; and for pupils who have been looked after—for example, in foster care. We also propose to set a minimum level of funding that all schools should attract, regardless of size, to help with fixed costs, such as employing a head teacher, and to help smaller schools. I plan to set a minimum level of additional funding that schools in sparsely populated areas that are vital to serving rural communities should attract.
	We will also, of course, apply higher funding to certain areas where teacher pay costs are higher. Our consultation document sets out our proposals in full for all the minimum funding levels. Where there is a gap between a local authority's budget and what it needs to meet our new minimum funding levels, the Department for Education will give the local authority additional funding to close that gap in 2015-16. Where a local authority's budget already exceeds what it needs to meet our minimum funding levels, we will not make any change to the amount of per pupil funding that it receives from the DFE. I confirm that no local authority and no school will receive less funding per pupil as a result of these proposals.
	The proposals will mean that local authorities that currently receive unfairly low funding, such as Cambridgeshire, will have their funding significantly boosted. Based on the indicative figures set out in our
	consultation document, Cambridgeshire will see a long-awaited increase to its schools budget of about 7%. That will increase Cambridgeshire’s per pupil funding rate from about £3,950 a year to £4,225, an uplift in 2015-16 of £275 a pupil. Based on current estimates, that equates to a boost of about £20 million for schools in Cambridgeshire. I am sure that the announcement will be welcomed by Cambridgeshire MPs, including the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, and their constituents who have campaigned for many years for further funding.
	Cambridgeshire is just one of 60 local authorities that, based on current estimates, stand to gain from today’s historic announcement of an extra £350 million in funding for schools. I can tell hon. Members that by percentage rise the top 15 of the 60 authorities are likely to be Bromley, Cambridgeshire, Brent, Sutton, Northumberland, South Gloucestershire, Shropshire, Merton, Croydon, Bournemouth, Buckinghamshire, Cheshire West and Chester, Leicestershire, Warwickshire and Devon. In addition, areas such as Norfolk would receive an extra £16 million, Derbyshire £14 million and Surrey almost £25 million. Of course, many traditionally low-funded rural authorities are on that list, but hon. Members will want to note that areas such as Blackpool, Brent, Bury and, indeed, Stoke-on-Trent would gain under these plans. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will welcome these announcements.
	I know that the plans will certainly be welcomed in many schools across the country, scores of which have been generously funded by the coalition Government at a time of austerity, with a £2.5 billion pupil premium being added to a per pupil budget that is protected in cash terms. We understand, however, that schools, like all public sector organisations, face cost pressures from pay, energy price inflation and the necessary implementation of the proposals of the Hutton report on paying for high-quality public sector pensions. The changes will ensure that the least well-funded schools can now not just deal with such pressures but spend extra money to improve attainment.
	The consultation document we are publishing today sets out our proposals in detail. A copy of the document will be placed in the House Library and in the Vote Office. We welcome input and feedback from schools, local authorities and the wider public. I look forward to considering their views before we announce final arrangements for school funding for 2015-16.
	Today’s £350 million increase in funding represents a huge step forward towards fair funding in English schools and will make a real difference on the ground. It delivers fairness without creating instability, uncertainty or cuts in better-funded areas. We remain committed to further funding reform once the long-term spending plans are available after the next spending review. I commend the proposals to the House.

Kevin Brennan: I thank the Minister for the statement and the small amount of notice we had of its contents.
	There are growing pressures on education funding and demographic trends are dictating the need for more school places, with the National Audit Office reporting
	the need for an additional 250,000 places by next year. That has big implications for the allocation of education funding.
	Ministers have shown a degree of complacency in addressing the primary school places crisis. In less than a month, parents will learn the outcome of their application for their child’s primary school place and we know that under this Government we have seen a doubling of the number of classes with more than 30 pupils and—do not worry, I will not take up 1,400 words, as the Minister did—a trebling in the number of primary schools with more than 800 pupils. The pressures are real, which is why it is so alarming that according to NAO data two thirds of all places created by the free school programme are being diverted from areas of high and severe need for primary places. In secondary schools, only 19% of places—[Interruption.] Government Members should listen to this—they should listen with their ears, rather than their mouths. In secondary schools, only 19% of places are in areas of need. That cannot be right, particularly on a day when another free school has gone into special measures.
	We have to take any statements on finance from the Schools Minister with a pinch of salt, because he has form. He used to claim when in opposition that the pupil premium would be additional money in real terms for schools, but, as he admitted today in his statement, it is not additional money in real terms. What are the implications of the statement for the pupil premium and for non-local authority schools?
	The idea of a national funding formula has merit, but it must be debated openly and transparently. The coalition has said that it is committed to a new national funding formula by 2015-16. Can we assume from today’s statement that this has been filed away in the drawer marked “Too difficult”, and that there will be no new comprehensive funding formula under this increasingly impotent Government?
	The Minister claimed that previous Governments did nothing on this. That is nonsense. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that a new national funding formula will have winners and losers. If Ministers are pursuing the national funding formula, they must do so in an open and transparent way and be clear about who will lose out. So can the right hon. Gentleman confirm—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think no one is going to lose out. Can the Minister confirm that there are no losers from this announcement because he has decided to leave the bad news for those he intends to hit with cuts, including his hon. Friends who are so voluble, until after the next general election?
	If this is genuinely new money for education, it will have a Barnett formula consequential for the devolved Administrations, which I know will be of interest to all political parties in the devolved nations, including the Minister’s own party. Can he confirm that this announcement contains new money from the Treasury, and say how much the Barnett consequential of that new money will be for the devolved Administrations and how much he is taking from his existing budget? It was not clear from his statement how much is new Treasury money, and how much he is cutting from the schools budget to pay for this part of the announcement. I would be grateful if he clarified those figures.
	The Minister said in his statement, “We are able to deliver this significant boost by using money from within our protected schools budget and because of additional money from the Treasury.” The House deserves to know how much will come from each source, where the money is being taken from within the protected schools budget and what the Barnett consequentials are. We learned this week that Ministers have been known to put the cart before the horse in devising policy, and only then to think how they might pay for it. Can the Minister assure us that this is fully costed and not simply another botched spending announcement from the Department for Education?

David Laws: I am grateful, I suppose, to the hon. Gentleman for his response, but all of us in the House are still none the wiser about whether the Labour party supports the proposals I am announcing today. Perhaps there could be some indication of this from the Labour Front Bench. Do I take it from all those critical comments that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) proposes to send back the money we are going to allocate to Stoke-on-Trent—potentially £4 million to his area? We are unaware from the statement whether the Labour party supports these proposals. Or is the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) genuinely embarrassed that his party failed to deal with the issue of underfunded areas year in, year out, in spite of clear evidence of unfair funding throughout the country?
	To come to the points that the hon. Gentleman did make, few of which were about the contents of my statement, I do not know how he has the nerve to accuse this Government of complacency over school place planning, when the amount of money that we are putting into basic need is many multiples of the amount that the previous Government put in. How can he talk about complacency when his was a Government who ignored all the forecasts of the Office for National Statistics from 2003 onwards and were taking out 250,000 primary schools places at a time when the population was increasing? That is behind many of the problems that we face in parts of the country today where Labour was closing down places when it should have been funding them.
	On the pupil premium, it is clear that we have protected, in cash terms, the settlement for every pupil, and the pupil premium is on top of that. I invite the hon. Gentleman to go to schools across the country, particularly to those in areas of high disadvantage, and try telling them that this is not extra money. It is making a massive difference in some of the most deprived schools. Furthermore, I can confirm that in 2014-15 the pupil premium will rise for primary schools from £900 to £1,300, and for secondary schools to £935. It will give schools thousands and thousands of pounds extra over a young disadvantaged person’s time in education to improve their educational outcomes, and I am very proud of that.
	We have also made it clear that the right time to set out the national fair funding formula is when we have multi-year plans, so we can create a sense of certainty. We are not, as previous Governments did, simply kicking this issue into the long grass. For the first time, we are delivering the uplifts that will make a real difference in
	areas such as Cambridgeshire and the others that I have mentioned. If the hon. Gentleman wants to campaign on that, he is welcome to do so.

Mark Harper: Gloucestershire is one of the lowest funded local authorities, so the Minister of State’s announcement will be very much welcomed by schools in the Forest of Dean and across the county. Will he set out for my benefit the amount of extra funding that we will get in Gloucestershire? The good news in his announcement can be detected in the fact that there are only eight Labour Back Benchers interested in schools funding. That is a triumph and shows the success of his announcement.

David Laws: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He notes quite correctly that the Labour party does not like to hear good news on this or on any other issue. I can tell him that the news for Gloucestershire is good. The proposals on which we are consulting today would give almost £10 million extra to Gloucestershire schools. They would potentially increase the per pupil funding rate from just over £4,200 per pupil to £4,331. Furthermore, south Gloucestershire is a gainer from these proposals, gaining more than £8.5 million. Its per pupil funding rate would rise from around £3,969 to £4,217, which is a massive increase that will be welcomed by schools in that area.

Bill Esterson: Under this Government, changes to local government funding have benefited the wealthiest areas at the expense of the areas of greatest deprivation, especially in places such as Sefton and the other metropolitan boroughs. Can the Minister assure us that the same thing will not happen when it comes to school funding?

David Laws: I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. If he goes to some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country, he will find that they are extremely welcoming of the Government’s actions, particularly on the pupil premium that has been put into authorities, some of which were already receiving generous levels of disadvantage funding. Schools in many of those areas welcome the action that we have taken as a coalition Government. They welcome the pupil premium, which, because it follow disadvantage, has gone heavily to the areas he is talking about.

Jonathan Djanogly: This is welcome news for Cambridgeshire. As my right hon. Friend knows, Cambridgeshire receives less funding than anywhere else in the country. That has been really showing in our schools, which have been reducing their teachers and struggling under this unfair funding formula. In the past 10 days alone, 750 of my constituents have signed a petition calling for immediate support. I ask my right hon. Friend to look kindly on Cambridgeshire when he comes to administering his £350 million pot.

David Laws: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I compliment him on the work that he and other county MPs in Cambridgeshire have done to raise the issue. I know that there is real anger in Cambridgeshire about the fact that it has been left as such an unfairly underfunded authority for so many years. I hope that schools in that area will welcome the uplift. The increase on which we
	are consulting would take the per pupil funding in Cambridgeshire from £3,950 to £4,225, which is an increase of around 7%. That is a significant uplift for its schools.

Clive Efford: In my experience, announcements made at the Dispatch Box often sound very fair, but when we look at the detail we find a lot of the devil in there as well. I caution Government Back Benchers to heed those words. Some local authorities are missing out but will receive what is effectively transitional funding. How long will that last? Will they fall off a precipice in 2016 and find themselves severely disadvantaged? What transparency will there be, because it is very important that we are able to scrutinise this, including in relation to capital funding? I am waiting for Corelli college in my constituency to hear from the Education Funding Agency, but it is very difficult to find out by what criteria it is being judged so that I know what to expect when funding is decided. We need more transparency in all cases.

David Laws: This is not overnight funding; we intend to address these issues for the long term. On fairness, I just point out to the hon. Gentleman, as I did in my statement, that the funding will help not only underfunded rural areas, but areas such as Brent, Blackpool, Bury and Stoke-on-Trent. On capital funding, if he has concerns about schools in his constituency, I would be happy to meet him to discuss them.

Julian Huppert: Cambridgeshire has been underfunded for 30 years now and, at £600 per pupil below the English average, is right at the bottom of the pack. At last this Government are doing something about it, as others have not. On behalf of all those who have campaigned on the issue for so many years, particularly the Cambridgeshire schools forum and Cambridge News, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister. I urge him to ensure that this actually happens.

David Laws: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are determined to ensure that these changes take place. I congratulate him on being such a robust campaigner for these changes—hardly a week has gone by over the past few years when he has not lobbied me for fair funding for Cambridgeshire. I know that there are schools in the county that are in vision distance of schools in other authorities that are funded in a totally different way. That was always unfair and we are now addressing it.

Liz Kendall: Currently, schools get the pupil premium based on the number of parents who apply for free school meals. If all children in reception, year 1 and year 2 will get a free school meal in future and parents no longer have to apply, how will the pupil premium be allocated?

David Laws: As the hon. Lady will know, that is an issue in places, such as Newham and Durham, where the eligibility checking service is being used to ensure that all those pupils still get the pupil premium. In the medium term, I believe that the answer is to move to a more automatic system so that, rather than having to rely on parents applying, we can ensure that the money is delivered automatically. It should not be necessary for
	parents to have to apply and for schools in some parts of the country to be so reliant on that process, which often means that they do not get the money they deserve. We will certainly ensure that that issue is addressed as we take these reforms forward.

Robert Buckland: Schools and families in Swindon will warmly welcome this announcement. Will my right hon. Friend outline the extent of the increase that schools in Swindon will enjoy and pay tribute to the work of f40—the Campaign for Fairer Funding in Education—and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who has worked so hard with many of us on that?

David Laws: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. Swindon is one of the authorities that will benefit from these changes. It currently receives funding of around £4,100 per pupil. Under the proposals we are announcing today, which we will consult on, that will increase by £100 per pupil, delivering almost £3 million extra to Swindon.

Derek Twigg: Halton is the 27th most deprived borough in England. Is it a gainer under these proposals? Will it gain as much as, say, Cambridge?

David Laws: There are 153 authorities, so I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman on that point. He can also pick up a copy of the details from the Vote Office. Given the level of deprivation, his constituency will be receiving a huge amount of pupil premium funding, which was never received under the Government he supported.

Stephen Barclay: I join my Cambridgeshire colleagues in welcoming this rise, which is much needed by schools in East Cambridgeshire and Fenland in my constituency. Does he agree that parents will not forget the unfair allocation left by the previous Labour Government, which has penalised our schools for the first half of this Parliament?

David Laws: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Cambridgeshire parents will not forget the underfunding under the previous Government, and they will also be worried about what would happen if a Labour Government came back in, because there seems to be a complete absence of commitment to these changes on the part of Labour Members.

Nicholas Dakin: It is good finally to get this statement, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) said, the devil will be in the detail in relation to where the money comes from and where it goes to. Given that 16 to 18-year-olds are already funded 22% less than five to 16-year-olds, does this change mean that they will be funded even less, or are they also captured in the concept of fair funding?

David Laws: This is an announcement for schools and it is covered by the schools protection provisions.

Nicholas Dakin: There are a lot of 16 to 18-year-olds in schools.

Eleanor Laing: Order. There should be one question and no comments from a sedentary position—not from a Whip.

Andrew Bridgen: For many years, schools in my county of Leicestershire have bumped along the very bottom of the education funding league tables, in stark contrast to schools in Leicester, which get £700 per year per pupil more than the county. I commend the excellent work of the f40 group, ably championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). Teachers, parents and pupils across Leicestershire will welcome this statement, but will my right hon. Friend assure the House that this is the beginning of a movement towards fair funding, not the end of it?

David Laws: I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. As I made clear, this is the first major step towards fair funding, not the last one that we believe is necessary. He will be pleased to know that the proposals that we are issuing for consultation take per-pupil funding in Leicestershire from £3,995 up to £4,197—an increase of over 5%.

Heidi Alexander: We have heard much today about fairer revenue funding for schools, but I would like to press the Minister again about fairer capital funding. When I met him in November, he was confident that he had secured enough money from the Treasury to fund the expansion of primary schools in London to meet rising demand, but in Lewisham we are £27 million short if we are to provide a school place for every child between now and 2017. What guarantee will he give me on funding these expansions?

David Laws: At the end of last year we announced a massive allocation of capital for basic need right across the country, with an additional premium for London that was very much welcomed by the London authorities. We have allocated for basic need many multiples of the amount that the previous Labour Government did. London has been a huge gainer. We have increased the period of time for which we allocate the money to three years to allow for forward planning. However, if the hon. Lady is still concerned about the situation in her area, I would be delighted to meet her and go through the figures.

Annette Brooke: I welcome the statement and note that it has taken a coalition Government to make some progress on fairer funding for our schools. Given that last year, under its current administration, Poole had the worst key stage 2 results across the country, will my right hon. Friend confirm the position for Poole? Does he agree that any extra money that goes to Poole must be put into our schools to support teachers in improving the outcomes for our children?

David Laws: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Once again, I praise her resilience in campaigning on this issue throughout the long period of the Labour Administration, who ignored the issue. I am pleased that it is a coalition Government who are proposing to raise the amount of funding for Poole from just over £4,000 per pupil to £4,142, which would give Poole over £2.25 million of additional funding.

Kevin Brennan: The civil service is meant to be independent; this is outrageous.

Eleanor Laing: Order. If Opposition Front Benchers insist on speaking, it should be sotto voce and not so that the House can hear exactly what the hon. Gentleman has said. He had his go at some length—at sufficient length, in my judgment.

Diana Johnson: It is very interesting that the Minister is able to give the allocations that are relevant to Government Members, but not those that are relevant to Opposition Members. Will schools in Hull gain from his proposals?

David Laws: I have mentioned many of the authorities represented by Opposition Members that will gain from the proposals, including Blackpool and many other parts of the country. Of the 153 authorities, 62 will gain. I do not believe that Hull is one of the authorities considered to be underfunded. The hon. Lady can check the precise figures in the papers that are in the Vote Office.

Therese Coffey: I really welcome the announcement. It is a significant step towards a fairer funding formula, which children in our counties were denied by the previous Government. Labour continues politically to use the education budget for its own areas. I am keen to hear what the announcement will mean for children in Suffolk, if the Minister has that information available.

Kevin Brennan: Oh, I’m sure he does.

David Laws: Labour Members are making a lot of noise, which reflects their embarrassment at the fact that this was a problem for years under a Labour Government and they did nothing about it. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not like to hear good news, but I can give him some more good news for Suffolk, whose funding will go up by more than £9 million, from £4,241 a pupil to £4,347. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Labour Members cannot take this in a measured way or accept that we are doing the right thing to deliver fair funding.

Chris Skidmore: Under the current funding regime inherited from Labour, South Gloucestershire is the second-lowest-funded local authority in the country. I have long campaigned for there to be no difference in funding when it comes to areas of deprivation in Kingswood and in neighbouring Bristol, which—this is desperately unfair—gets £750 more per pupil. May I welcome the massive increase in funding for south Gloucestershire pupils and ask the Minister, on behalf of my constituents, what that will mean for pupils in Kingswood?

David Laws: I am happy to confirm the figure that I mentioned a moment ago to another Gloucestershire MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). South Gloucestershire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) correctly indicates, is one of the areas that have been underfunded for a long time. Under the proposals on which we are consulting, its funding will go up from the current £3,969 per pupil to an indicative figure of £4,217. That 6.3% increase is significant and I know that parents in my hon. Friend’s constituency will welcome it, even if the Labour party does not.

Kevin Brennan: Oh, shut up.

Eleanor Laing: Order. The whole House heard the hon. Gentleman’s remark from a sedentary position. An apology would be appropriate.

Kevin Brennan: Without reservation, I apologise.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for acting honourably and trust he will now be a little quieter.

Nick Harvey: May I warmly welcome this significant step in the right direction? An extra £200 per pupil in Devon is a very welcome step. Of course, we still want to see a fair funding formula, but I recognise that the time to do it will probably be next year, when there is a comprehensive spending review. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the event of a new Government being elected and not progressing with this next year, the extra moneys he has announced today will go permanently into the system and will not simply be a one-year deal?

David Laws: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. Our intention is clear that the increases should be permanent. That relies on the decisions the country will have to make at the next general election.

Andrew Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and on targeting funding towards pupils in the schools that need it most. Will he provide a little more information on the implications for north Yorkshire?

David Laws: I can confirm that north Yorkshire is one of the authorities affected by today’s announcement. Its current funding per pupil is £4,338 and, if the consultation goes ahead, it will rise to £4,435. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Labour Members genuinely are not able to accept that this is a serious matter and that some of these areas have been underfunded for many years. In spite of this serious issue, the coalition Government took the decision to apply the pupil premium and add it to many areas that were already very well funded. We took that deliberate decision in the knowledge that that would put deprivation first, and we are now making sure that we also correct this injustice.

Rehman Chishti: I very much welcome the Minister’s statement. It addresses the unfair funding system for students in Medway, which has some of the worst key stage 2 results in the country. There is a seven-year difference in life expectancy between two parts of my constituency. Will the Minister clarify how Medway local authority will benefit under the proposal? [Interruption.]

David Laws: I of course—it is quite possible to do this—have a list of the 62 authorities impacted. If the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) wants one, she can go and get a copy. Medway’s current funding is £4,352, which will increase to £4,402 under the proposal.

Martin Horwood: May I tell my right hon. Friend that this announcement will be warmly welcomed in Cheltenham and across Gloucestershire—including in schools such as Balcarras, whose sixth-form
	funding has been particularly badly hit by the inclusion of the historical element in the funding formula—but when will we hear further announcements about progress towards a fully fair funding formula, and will that happen within the next 12 months?

David Laws: We will now have the consultation on the measures announced today. We will listen to the feedback we get from parents, teachers and others, and we will then make a final decision about the settlement for 2015-16. Given the importance of stability, we do not think it right to fix plans for years beyond 2015-16 until we know the education budgets for those years. It is for the country to decide at the next election whether it wants to return parties that are committed to ongoing funding reform.

Bob Blackman: In the London borough of Harrow, 12 primary schools will add an extra class to each year group this September, and a further three primary schools will do the same the following September, which amounts to 3,000 extra school places. One problem is the lag between the pupils being allocated and the funding following them. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no attempt to reduce the amount of pupil funding in those schools, and that the funding will increase in line with his statement?

David Laws: We are certainly trying to ensure that in areas such as my hon. Friend’s we put in extra money to support the expansion of school places that is taking place. As he knows, we have now had the biggest increase in the primary population since the end of the second world war, and we are making sure that we put all funding, including capital funding, into the system to support that increase.

David Morris: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that had the funding criteria been in place a few years ago, the Labour county council would not be shutting down Skerton school in my constituency?

David Laws: Certainly. We are announcing significant amounts of money today. Hon. Members on both sides of the House need to reflect on the consequence for many millions of young people over a long period of the fact that their schools were not funded fairly in many parts of the country.

Paul Burstow: I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement about basic needs capital earlier this year, including the £35 million to enable Sutton to provide extra secondary school places. In his statement, he mentioned Sutton as one of the potential beneficiaries of the changes. Sutton has been short-changed in funding for education for at least 30 years, if not 40 years. Will he give us some indication of the good news that pupils, teachers and schools in Sutton can now expect in securing extra resources for teaching?

David Laws: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for welcoming this announcement. In the paper on which we will consult, Sutton is among the top five authorities that we consider to be under-funded and is therefore among the top five beneficiaries. He will know that the
	funding rate in Sutton is £4,360 at present; under the proposal we are consulting on, it will rise to £4,637, which is an increase of 6.4%.

Damian Hinds: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the combination of fairer area funding, the pupil premium and the protection of the overall schools budget amply demonstrates the Government’s commitment to investing strongly in our nation’s future, while targeting additional resources transparently at the places where they are most needed?

David Laws: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I am incredibly proud of what we will have done on school funding by the end of this Parliament. At a time of austerity, we have put a massive amount into deprivation funding, which has helped constituencies across the country and the most disadvantaged areas in particular. Now we are dealing with the long-standing injustice of other areas having been short-changed.

Jeremy Lefroy: I welcome the movement, at last, towards fairer funding. I also welcome the additional amount for Stoke-on-Trent—a city that is close to my heart, as well as to my constituency. Will the Minister expand on what today’s announcement will mean in the long term for my county of Staffordshire?

David Laws: I am looking down my list, but I will have to come back to my hon. Friend because I do not have the number immediately to hand, given that there are 153 authorities.

John Glen: Wyvern college in my constituency is one of many Wiltshire schools that has been historically underfunded. Will the Minister meet me to discuss its 10-year deficit? On a more positive note, will he outline the additional per pupil funds that will be available to all Wiltshire schools as a consequence of today’s announcement?

David Laws: I would, of course, be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these matters. Wiltshire is one of the 60-odd authorities that will benefit from the statement. Its funding will rise by about £100 per pupil.

Andrew George: Like other Members, I welcome this important step to put right, in the case of Cornwall, more than three decades of unfair funding. That has left a legacy of crumbling schools that have simply not kept up. My right hon. Friend knows about Helston community college, because I took a delegation to see him about it. Will the fairness that is being brought in be reflected in future announcements on capital funding?

David Laws: I assure my hon. Friend that we will bring fairness to capital as well as to revenue funding. Under the last Government, capital for maintenance and rebuilding was allocated largely on the basis of pupils, rather than on the basis of the condition of the estate. We are surveying the entire school estate. That will allow us, later this year, to make long-term announcements on capital that are informed by the actual condition of schools across the country.

Andrew Percy: When I started campaigning on this issue in 2008, Labour said locally that I was trying to steal money from neighbouring urban areas. Even after this announcement, neighbouring urban areas such as Hull and Doncaster will receive hundreds of pounds more per pupil than my area to meet the additional needs in those areas. I welcome the announcement. Will the Minister tell us how much extra brass we will be getting in the East Riding of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire as a result?

David Laws: There is a long list to go down and Lincolnshire is certainly on it. Its per pupil funding will rise to £4,370. I will write to my hon. Friend about both authorities.

Robert Halfon: This announcement, along with the pupil premium and free school meals for poor pupils, shows that the Government have a relentless focus on the poor. When the Minister says that funding will be based on the actual characteristics of pupils and schools, does that relate to areas within counties and not just to counties? Will he set out how the proposals will help my constituency of Harlow?

David Laws: I should explain that what the Government will do under these proposals is to ensure that each local authority area is funded fairly. There will still be flexibility for individual local authorities to take decisions about how they allocate that money to their schools.

Simon Wright: I welcome the proposals, which could mean several million pounds of extra funding for Norfolk schools. Will the Minister confirm that heads will have the freedom to use this money to support the professional development of teachers and to assess more effectively the impact of training on pupil outcomes?

David Laws: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. He has been a robust campaigner for fairness for Norfolk. He is right to say that we must focus not only on the quantity of additional money that is going to areas such as Norfolk, which will get £16 million extra under our proposals, but on ensuring that the money is spent effectively. I believe that providing high-quality continuing professional development for teachers would be a good way of spending it.

Julian Smith: Will the Minister join the tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) who, ironically, cannot be here today but has done incredible work over many years on this issue? Will he also confirm his announcement on schools in sparsely populated areas, which is important for Nidderdale high school, Upper Wharfedale and other schools in North Yorkshire?

David Laws: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the work done by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) in leading the recent campaign at a national level with the so-called F40 authorities, and I am sorry that he cannot be here today because his area gets an uplift. I agree that sparsity should be a consideration. We must ensure that where we need more schools because of rurality, that is reflected in the way we fund local authorities.

Eleanor Laing: A surprising last-minute entry, Mr Bill Wiggin.

Bill Wiggin: I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to the statement and hearing how my right hon. Friend is teasing Labour Members by not telling them their figures. Will he remember and reinforce the unfairness that we have had to put up with for so many years, and turn the knife by telling us how much Herefordshire is getting?

David Laws: Yes, I certainly can. Herefordshire is one of the authorities that were underfunded by previous Labour Governments, and it will gain as a consequence of this announcement with funding rising to around £4,430 a pupil.

Points of Order

Derek Twigg: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. We have had a blatant attempt by the Minister not to answer questions from Labour Members. I asked him specifically about the impact on Halton. I have just checked the figures, and—surprise, surprise—Halton is not included among the areas that will benefit. The Minister deliberately answered Government Members, but would not answer questions from Labour Members. That is a great disrespect to this House.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman knows, as the House knows, that that is a continuation of the debate and not a point of order for the Chair. He has made his point, and I am sure the Minister has heard it.

Clive Efford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We were told that the figures for our constituencies would be in the document, but I went to the Vote Office and they are not. We have only a list of 62 authorities that have benefited from the £350 million that has been announced today. Furthermore—this is important—the document states that there are implications for converging funding under one formula in the future. That clearly has serious consequences for the constituents of those of us who miss out, but we are not being told. We have a right to know.

Julian Smith: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that in a serious debate on school funding, the shadow Minister behaves like a school bully in the playground—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to make a point of order further to that raised by the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). That is not a point of order but rather a matter for me to deal with. I have dealt with it, and the shadow Minister has acknowledged that and apologised.
	I fully appreciate that the hon. Member for Eltham is making a point about which he feels passionately, but it is not a matter on which the Chair can rule at this moment. The information given to the House by the Minister is a matter for him. He is here and hears the point. If he would care to respond to the point of order, I give him the opportunity to do so.

David Laws: I am delighted to confirm, as I made clear in my statement, that we have listed the authorities that are gaining from the changes we are making today. Authorities not on the list are not losing anything; they are protected.

Derek Twigg: rose—

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman has already made his point and it was not a point or order. This statement has run for three quarters of an hour and has now come to an end.

Local Government Procurement

Eleanor Laing: Before I call the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, it might be helpful to the House if I explain again briefly the new procedure to which it agreed last year—[Interruption.] Order. If hon. Members are dissatisfied with the last statement, they must find another way of taking up their points and not cause a disturbance in the Chamber.
	Essentially, the pattern is the same as for a ministerial statement. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) will speak for up to 10 minutes—there is no obligation to take all that time—during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members who rise to put questions to the hon. Gentleman, and call him to respond to those in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief, and those on the Front Benches may take part in questioning. The same procedure will be followed for the statement from the Chair of the International Development Committee, which follows this statement.
	I call the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee.

Clive Betts: (Select Committee Statement): I am delighted to present the sixth report from the Communities and Local Government Committee on local government procurement, HC 712. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this opportunity, as well as our special adviser, Colin Cram, and the second Clerk to the Committee, Sarah Coe, who led the work in producing the report.
	Local government spends about a quarter of its annual expenditure—some £45 billion—on procuring goods and services. At a time of financial constraint in local government, my Committee thought it timely to examine how successfully councils across the country are delivering value for money and meeting wider objectives. I am pleased that we found evidence of much good progress in many local authorities. Councils are cutting costs and reducing the burdens on those doing business with them, strengthening links with the delivery of community objectives, improving risk management, and taking steps to reduce fraud. We also found, however, that evidence of progress was patchy across the country. That is extremely worrying given that councils face the challenges of managing increasingly complex procurement operations, while at the same time, for obvious reasons, they need to make cost savings and preserve the quality of services for their communities.
	The Committee makes a number of recommendations in the report about how the sector and its partners, including central Government, can work together to ensure that councils step-up their efforts to commit to delivering first-class procurement. As in all our reports, the Committee takes a localist approach, giving councils the freedom to tailor their approaches to meet local needs—hence we urge the sector to take the lead in this matter. The Committee makes three overarching recommendations and a number of specific points. I will refer initially to the three overarching points.
	First, local government needs to lead the change in partnership with central Government and other partners. We commend the work undertaken to date by many councils and the Local Government Association. We endorse the sector-led approach to supporting council action since it is an effective means of spreading good practice while tailoring procurement to local needs. Nevertheless, a step-change is now needed for successes to be replicated across the country, and for detailed support to be provided to tackle all complex aspects of procurement. We therefore conclude that the LGA, with the support of DCLG, should establish a taskforce with representatives of the private and third sectors to develop an action plan for improving council capacity to conduct effective procurement. We recommend that the Cabinet Office dedicate resources to ensure that lessons learned in central Government are translated into effective council action where appropriate, and vice versa.
	Secondly, procurement excellence needs to be embedded across councils, not seen as the preserve of a handful of specialists. A lesson we learned during the Committee’s visit to my city of Sheffield, was that procurement should not be seen as a niche activity, conducted in back offices by a narrow set of specialists, but rather as a vital cross-cutting activity that requires in-depth skills from all staff involved in designing, commissioning and particularly managing services once contracts are let. To achieve that, councils must step up training, and the sector—especially the Local Government Association—needs to ensure that procurement skills are embedded across councils. Investment in procurement skills should be seen as a wise investment now because it saves money in the future. Councils should look at adopting the toolkit developed by Sheffield city council, and the Cabinet Office should consider how the Government’s Commissioning Academy can help develop the skills of local government officers.
	The third overarching recommendation is the need for political and officer leadership. Procurement improvement must be spearheaded by council cabinet members and front-line councillors, with the close involvement of senior officers. We commend the LGA for putting procurement at the top table within councils. We can see considerable advantage to councils identifying a lead cabinet member and a senior officer who will take overall responsibility for procurement. Councils should also ensure that front-line councillors have a clearly defined role in reviewing and scrutinising procurement, including outsourced contracts, and their impact on services for residents. In the end, that is what is important: services for residents.
	We would like all councils to make an annual statement to their full council meetings to set out their strategy for incorporating economic, social and environmental value in procurement, including employment terms and conditions, impact on local economies and small businesses, and relationships between contractors, customers and the relevant councils.
	In total, the Committee makes 29 specific recommendations. You will probably be pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not have time to go into all of them, but I will mention some key recommendations.
	On value for money, councils have shown that they can save millions of pounds through joining up with each other and other public sector bodies, directly or
	via procurement organisations, to buy some goods and services. However, opportunities are not being taken fully and we estimate, conservatively, additional savings of approximately £1.8 billion could be achieved with better collaborative approaches. The LGA should review collaborative approaches and produce best practice guidance. It should continue to focus on supporting councils to collaborate in key spend areas—particularly in IT, energy and construction, where it is relatively easy for collaboration to save money—while recognising the importance of local freedoms and flexibilities. Securing savings should not come at the expense of delivering wider commissioning objectives, such as supporting local economies. There can be no compulsion to collaborate or to join a centralised procurement body. Councils must retain the flexibility to deliver local priorities, but should consider examples of good practice.
	On delivering economic, social and environmental objectives, the Committee was clear that councils should exploit fully the potential of their procurement spend to deliver local strategic priorities, including social, economic and environmental objectives, by letting contracts, as appropriate locally, on the basis of best value, not simply lowest price. A case in point is support for small local businesses, which all local authorities are keen to support. Some 47% of council spend is currently channelled via small and medium-sized enterprises. There is clearly much good practice, but more could be done, for example by the LGA disseminating best practice and guidance.
	On reducing costs to businesses, the cost to a business of a typical council procurement exercise can be about £40,000 to £50,000. A Centre for Economics and Business Research report published in July 2013 found that UK procurement processes were the most expensive in the EU and took some 53 days longer than average. Too many councils are applying EU regulations over-zealously. The Government and the LGA should spell out what is a proportionate approach. Pre-qualification questionnaires should be standardised, so that councils do not require a new form for every contract and potential suppliers do not find themselves having to fill in different forms for every local authority and every public body. There should be standardisation to reduce costs. Councils must include requirements in contracts that contractors stick to timetables for paying their subcontractors right down the supply chain, with spot checks on implementation. It is not acceptable for firms to delay payment, which puts smaller firms, in particular, at risk of cash-flow crises.
	Outsourcing a contract does not mean outsourcing responsibility for ensuring quality and consistency of service to residents. It is therefore alarming that in the worst cases councils not only fail to monitor quality but bear the costs when a contractor fails to deliver its side of the contract. It is vital that councils are equipped to manage complex contracts. Greater voluntary collaborative work between regional procurement bodies can open up access to specialist procurement skills to help to tackle this problem.
	On fraud, we found little hard evidence of significant fraud, but widespread unease that, as more services are put out to tender, local authorities are at much greater risk. Councils must not “let and forget” contracts, but proactively tackle fraud throughout the lifetime of a contract, not just during the tender phase. Contracts let by public bodies must be transparent and performance
	against them auditable. We support the Government’s commitment to open-book accounting. Councils should consider placing similar requirements on information provision by contractors as applied to a public body under freedom of information regulations to provide a level playing field. We heard that one of the best means of identifying fraud was whistleblowing. More needs to be done to support whistleblowers and the Government must publicise arrangements for an anonymous reporting channel.
	The measures set out in our report will help to achieve a vision of better procurement and commissioning from local councils. We hope that the Government, local government sector leaders and individual councils will pay heed to our recommendations.

Bob Blackman: I welcome the statement and the contribution we have all made to the report. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we uncovered many examples of good practice, but that no authority is doing all those things? We desperately need to ensure that examples of good practice are followed by all local authorities, so that every resident benefits from the good practice of the best authorities.

Clive Betts: Absolutely. That was the theme right the way through the inquiry. There is a lot of good work out there and the best way to persuade local authorities to change is to show them another local authority that is doing things in a better way. That is why the LGA is key to delivering improvements; with many of our reports, that is probably not the case. We are looking to the LGA and the Department for Communities and Local Government to work together to set up a taskforce to bring examples of good practice together and disseminate them to councils up and down the country.

Simon Danczuk: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent chairmanship of the Select Committee and for this inquiry in particular. If he were to read my article for the new think-tank, the Entrepreneurs Network, he would see that I suggest a kitemark scheme for local government that encourages councils to be small business friendly, not least on procurement. Does he think that the LGA could adopt that and take it forward?

Clive Betts: The Select Committee did not consider that particular proposal, but it is interesting. We recommend that the LGA sets up a taskforce and I am sure that that is something it can consider. Indeed, every council should consider it. One of our recommendations is that once a year there should be a report to the whole council on a local authority’s procurement practices, with specific attention given to how local authorities deal with small businesses and local businesses as part of their commissioning approach. That is something individual councils could consider, too.

Neil Parish: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his Committee’s report. Procurement is about not just getting value for money, but ensuring that small local companies can access contracts. Did the Committee consider the procurement of local food and produce, so that we have the chance to ensure that good quality, high welfare standard food is fed to our children and used in our hospitals?

Clive Betts: We did not look specifically at food contracts—obviously, with £45 billion of spending, there is a wide range of contracts—but we found that local government commissions and procures about 40% of its expenditure from small businesses. That is a higher percentage than for central Government, so there are many good examples. We recommended that councils should have an annual report. That would allow them to consider how to deal with small businesses and tailor commissioning to enable them to compete for contracts; that is an important element of the recommendation. That should be embedded in council policy from the beginning. Councils should not just suddenly think, “Oh dear, that contract hasn’t really given small businesses a chance” after it is let. It should be embodied in the policy of the council from the beginning.

Chris Williamson: I congratulate my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on which I serve, on his statement. Does he agree that the £45 billion of procurement for which local government is responsible makes a considerable contribution to economic growth and sets a good example—I think he alluded to this in his response to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—that central Government would do well to follow? Procurement should benefit the British economy rather than being expended overseas, something we unfortunately see with central Government procurement, such as with the contract for the Thameslink deal that should have gone to Bombardier but went to Siemens.

Clive Betts: Some of the councils that we studied took a robust and considered approach to benefits for their local economies, while others did not do quite so well in that regard. Again, it is necessary to learn from good practice. We asked the Government to carry out a post-legislative review of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, which gives councils certain responsibilities, to consider its impact on local economies, and to extend its social value requirements to smaller contracts, which it does not currently cover.

John McDonnell: I welcome the report, but I urge my hon. Friend and the Committee to go further. I asked a succession of ex-council officers, serving officers and members of residents’ associations in the London borough of Hillingdon to consider some of the issues raised in the report. Let me give some examples. The first is the use of part 2 of the “Cabinet Meetings” document to maintain secrecy on matters relating to contracts that should be open and transparent, including poor performance and, in particular, decision making by councillors. The second is the use of compromise agreements involving a gagging clause preventing staff from exposing what has gone on after they have left.
	As for my third example, let me introduce my hon. Friend to a term that is currently being used in the London borough of Hillingdon: the term “be restructured”. It means that the department of a whistleblower, or anyone who questions or criticises any decision made by the council, particularly decisions made by the leader of the council, will suddenly “be restructured”, and the whistleblower will be without a job. That is unacceptable. I think that I was the first Member to refer to the Transparency International report in the Chamber, and
	I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn on it, because it revealed the openness of local government to abuse and, indeed, corruption. I think that we must be eternally vigilant.
	I urge the Committee to move on to the agenda that has been set out in my constituency, and look into the concerns that have been expressed about local government performance in our area.

Clive Betts: My hon. Friend has raised a number of points. Let me deal first with his point about transparency. We support open-book accounting, but I accept that that means opening the books to the councils themselves rather than a wider agenda. Freedom of information is often not applied to every aspect of a contractor’s dealings. We urged councils to consider making that so, but did not direct them to do so because ultimately this is a local matter and they should be free to make that decision. As for whistleblowing, we concluded that a clear system that contractors would be required to adopt should be written into the contracts. There should be no effect on a whistleblower. They should be protected as part of the contract. If any whistleblower raises concerns with a contractor, the information must be passed on to the council. We also considered ways of enabling whistleblowers to draw attention to problems anonymously, which would probably involve a role for the National Audit Office.

Barry Gardiner: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement. He rightly referred to a move from lowest cost to best value. He will, of course, be aware of legislation passed by the last Labour Government, which stipulated that all public bodies should procure only legal and sustainable timber. Did the Committee carry out any investigations of the progress that local authorities are making in that respect?

Clive Betts: I am afraid that I cannot provide a great deal of further enlightenment. We did not receive much evidence relating to the environmental elements of local government commissioning. What was clear to us, however, was that, although cost is obviously very important to councils at this time, other important issues, such as the quality of service, economic and social added value, and indeed environmental impacts and implications, should be considered by councils as part of their procurement strategies.

Lyn Brown: I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. As the report makes clear, procurement is inextricably linked with local government aspirations relating to the pursuit of social value and community benefit, collaboration to obtain best value for money, greater transparency and a better understanding of risk. I particularly welcome the suggestion that there should be more guidance on best practice in procurement to increase the number of local apprenticeships and trainee opportunities. Does he agree that central Government should support that work, so that much more can be done locally to strengthen our economy and deliver good outcomes for local people?

Clive Betts: Absolutely. We believe that that is now a matter for central Government—the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Cabinet Office, whose commissioning academy could be used to
	increase skills in local authorities—and for the Local Government Association. Many examples of good practice will be sector-led. A number of councils are doing excellent work across the political spectrum in encouraging contractors to take on apprentices as part of an overall council policy, but the practice would be a great deal more effective and beneficial if it were adopted by other councils. That aim is at the heart of our report.
	I thank all members of the Committee for their work. I believe that the report makes many good recommendations that will enable us to make progress. It was approved by the whole Committee, and that is the basis on which we always try to work.

Barry Gardiner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before the statement, you were good enough to explain the procedures—which are rather novel for the House—that would govern its delivery and the subsequent questions. Can you tell me whether it is in order, when such a statement is made by the Chair of a Select Committee, for no Minister from the relevant Department to be present?

Clive Betts: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A local government Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams)—was asked to attend, but he thought that the statement would be made earlier, and he had a ministerial commitment outside the House. He rang my office to apologise and I accepted his apology. The Deputy Chief Whip is representing him on the Front Bench, but obviously the Deputy Chief Whip could not speak.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for explaining the background.
	It is so refreshing to hear a point of order that is a point of order! I can respond to the genuine point of order raised by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) by saying that a Minister—albeit a Whip—was present throughout the proceedings. It is not necessary for Front Benchers to take part in statements of that kind. It is of course desirable for the relevant Minister to pay attention to what is happening in the Chamber as a result of a Select Committee’s deliberations, but the Select Committee Chairman has explained very well what happened this morning. I am glad to have had an opportunity to explain further how the new procedure will work, and I therefore thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order.

Burma

Malcolm Bruce: Following the point of order from the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), I am pleased to see the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan) sitting on the Front Bench.
	I welcome the opportunity to make a statement on the International Development Committee’s report on democracy and development in Burma, which is also known as Myanmar. There is a little item in the report about the issue of its name. I had the privilege of visiting Burma last July as part of a delegation led by Mr Speaker and including my fellow Committee member the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), as well as the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). The Committee also visited the country last November. We spent time in and around Yangon, and in the capital, Naypyidaw. From Naypyidaw we drove down to Mandalay, stopping en route, and then made visits in and around Mandalay.
	We concluded that Burma presents unique challenges in comparison with any of the United Kingdom’s other bilateral aid partners. As most people know, the country has endured 60 years of conflict and decades of military dictatorship, during which development and progress have regressed. Per capita GDP is $800, while the per capita income of its neighbour Thailand is $4,800. Although the UK has remained engaged and has provided support, the circumstances have been difficult, as the Committee observed in its last report in 2007. At that time, we could only visit refugee camps on the Thai border; we could not visit the country itself.
	Since cyclone Nargis devastated the country, it has become apparent internally that if the country is to develop, it needs to change. The military Government have transferred some powers to the Parliament, and after by-elections last year, Aung San Suu Kyi was elected to Parliament along with 42 of her National League for Democracy colleagues. Full elections are promised for next year.
	While a host of problems remain, a key opportunity exists for UK development programmes to help deliver transformational change. We must seize the moment. The Committee’s main conclusions are: that the Department for International Development should be more engaged with the political nature of Burma’s development—this is not just about development; it is about politics, too—and that the UK should continue to press for constitutional reform for the development of a federal structure inside Burma, which is being talked about widely there, and for the removal of the block on Aung Sa Suu Kyi standing for president. That is not because she has to be the president, but because it would be somewhat strange if a clearly popular elected opposition party candidate were not at least eligible to be a presidential candidate. As part of this, the UK Government should work to help the armed ethnic groups and the Burmese military to make the transition to delivering civilian Government. That is a huge challenge.
	DFID has given a substantial chunk of its budget to health programmes and we saw, and heard, how radical and transformational they were, but the Department should place even more emphasis on addressing drug-resistant malaria in Burma as it is a problem that threatens to spread to the rest of the world with potentially devastating consequences.
	One specific issue, which an exchange with the Minister shows he understands, is that DFID’s education budget in Burma is currently too small to be effective. We are not saying it is of no value, but we do think it should increase, with a major focus on teacher training. We have, effectively, a lost generation in Burma that desperately needs education.
	We also think that DFID’s work to assist the peace process, to improve public financial management, to encourage the inclusion of women and to reform the Burmese military should continue, with additional funding made available as opportunities to expand these programmes arise. These are all major challenges.
	We welcome the UK support for the Burmese Parliament. It should be a long-term partnership and the UK will need to reform its approach to parliamentary strengthening to ensure that DFID and the Foreign Office can rely less on non-UK organisations—such as United Nations Development Programme and the National Democratic Institute—and draw more on UK organisations. The Westminster brand is valued, and we think it is strange that we are buying expertise from other models when people would like to hear more from ours.
	The UK is doing a very good job in helping to co-ordinate the role of the development partners as chair of the working group, and we believe that that should continue. Smaller donors should be encouraged to be part of that process, rather than to try to operate independently.
	We recognised when visiting the peace centre that there is a ceasefire across most of the country, but as yet there is no peace process. The situation in Rakhine is critical and could threaten the whole reform process if it is not addressed. DFID can help by doing more to promote inter-faith dialogue and inter-community understanding.
	We accept that in the current situation progress will be unpredictable and uneven, but supporting the reform process by working to deliver public services and develop livelihoods offers unprecedented potential.
	To achieve these transformational objectives we recommend that the bilateral budget for Burma be increased from its current level of over £60 million to around £100 million. We think that there is more than enough work in education, in parliamentary strengthening and in building Government institutions to justify the steady build-up of expenditure and we believe that DFID could, and should, find that resource.
	I hope the House will accept that the UK has a crucial role to play in Burma. We have partners we can work with. We have an opportunity that may not come again and we should not miss it.

Meg Munn: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I had the opportunity
	to visit Burma last summer, looking specifically at issues around maternal health. What struck the group that went out with Marie Stopes was that the budget for health in Burma is extraordinarily small. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the importance of developing the political process. Did the Committee look at the balance between UK funds helping to directly provide health services, for example, as opposed to working with the Government and Parliament and has it looked at the overall funding compared with international comparators?

Malcolm Bruce: We recognise that Burma needs capacity right across the whole system. Frankly, its spending on health and education has been minimal and its capacity to do that at the moment is pretty limited. We have to work with the partners we can find, sometimes directly. Of course we want to build up capacity within the Government, provided that the partners within the Government will respond in the right way, but we did see very good co-operation and real evidence that we are making specific changes. So our view is that we can expand the development support and help build those institutions, but we also need to strengthen the political capacity. One particular step is to enable Parliament to raise the funds that will ultimately enable these developments to be taken forwards as the economy develops. That is crucial and it is something DFID does very well in many other countries.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I am the chair of the all-party group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases. I and my colleagues on that committee are extremely concerned about the growth of resistance to artemisinin-based drugs, which are our main hope for tackling malaria in Burma and the surrounding area. Does my right hon. Friend think the international community is giving enough weight to this issue?

Malcolm Bruce: I commend my hon. Friend for his assiduous work on the all-party committee, which is extremely important. The answer to his question is that it has not been possible to do enough because of the problems of conflict and lack of access. Indeed, that is the very reason why it has become an endemic threat to the whole world. We hope that, with a ceasefire in place and hopefully the beginnings of a peace process, the opportunity to engage will increase. That is why we have made a specific recommendation that greater priority within the health budget should be given to tackling that problem, and I am certain that my hon. Friend will ensure we focus on that.

Nigel Dodds: The report refers to DFID’s main contribution to peace-building having been in funding Jonathan Powell’s non-governmental organisation Inter Mediate, with strong experience being drawn from what happened in the Northern Ireland peace process. Has the Committee made any assessment of the work of Inter Mediate and the way in which the experience in Northern Ireland has helped to develop peace-building in Burma?

Malcolm Bruce: We did not make a specific engagement within that process, but we learned from DFID that the Northern Ireland experience was seen to
	be of some value and relevance. We obviously have to be careful not to assume that what happened in Northern Ireland is automatically transferable, but some kind of understanding of how we get beyond entrenched conflict to a situation where communities can start to work together is clearly useful, and the justification for supporting Jonathan Powell’s organisation was that he had some experience of doing that. The right hon. Gentleman may have a subjective view on how valid that is, but it seemed to us that this was well-received by the Burmese who felt it helped them to think about how to stop hating people and start working with those who were enemies, and that seems to be of some value.

Bob Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend for the report. Bearing in mind the situation in Egypt where the military have had real problems in giving up power, will he give us his candid assessment of the chances of the Burmese military ceding power to a democratic Government in the near future?

Malcolm Bruce: That is a very good and fair question and we took a lot of evidence, ranging from people who felt the military would never let go to others who felt the pressures on Burma to open up were so intense that the reforms that have been started could not be reversed, although their progress will, I think, be uneven and bumpy. All I can say is that the authorities representing the military who we met looked to the Indonesian model as the way forward—in other words, a gradual move away from military control through the building of civilian capacity. But I guess that the day when the military is subservient to Parliament is a long way off.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and I visited Burma in 2012. One of the Government Ministers there had been given the task of mediating between the various ethnic minority groups. I have a suspicion, however, that the disputes between some of the groups have got worse since then. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what he found in that respect?

Malcolm Bruce: The Committee did not have the opportunity to visit some of the more disputed territories, either for security reasons or because access was not granted or there was insufficient time. We understood, however, that there was at least a ceasefire in place across the whole country, except in the north. That is good news. The bad news is that the process of turning that ceasefire into a proper process of moving towards civilian government and letting go from the centre has not begun. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that the army has consolidated its position in exactly those provinces. That does not bode well, unless it starts to accommodate the other armed ethnic groups as part of the process of change. That is something that we think the UK Government could contribute to, so long as we have partners to work with.

Gavin Shuker: We welcome this thoughtful and comprehensive report, which reflects upon the progress being made in this troubled Commonwealth nation. The Chair of the Committee referred to the role of DFID in helping to build democratic capacity and strengthen Parliament in Burma. Of course,
	DFID is not just the charitable arm of the UK Government; it is a major force for soft power. What work is the Committee planning to do to examine DFID’s wider work on building democracy, particularly in the light of recent examples such as Bangladesh, where those processes have had mixed results?

Malcolm Bruce: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments; I completely agree with him. Incidentally, we thought that the co-operation between DFID and the Foreign Office in Burma was particularly successful. Indeed, our visit would not have been the success that it was without the full co-operation that we had from the Foreign Office and from the ambassador and his team, although that is not in any way to suggest that the DFID team was not also extraordinarily important. That is the kind of working that matters, because this is a political process as well as a development process.
	We actually had a much fuller section on parliamentary strengthening in the draft report, and we concluded that that was an issue to which we should return separately. The Committee has not yet agreed on that, but I think that we have unofficially agreed that we should produce a short report on how DFID could expand its role of parliamentary strengthening in all the partner countries. If we are concentrating on post-conflict countries and fragile states, building democratic institutions and making them work are surely central to that task. We have a unique capacity to do this work, and our view is that we need to put a lot more investment into it to ensure that our engagements are sustained and continuous, and that the contacts are maintained. These processes need to develop full, long-term relationships, rather than ending up with the odd seminar here and there or the odd secondment. I hope that we will be able to come up with a report that will develop that theme.

Alan Duncan: I rise briefly to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) and all his Committee for this report, and for the thoroughness of their inquiries. It is refreshing to be broadly commended in a Select Committee report, and to be asked to spend more. The request to raise our budget from £66 million to £100 million a year is an ambitious one, particularly as our funding increases have plateaued over the past few years, and there are further demands on our resources for the likes of humanitarian efforts in Syria. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House, however, that we will study all 39 recommendations and take them all into consideration when deploying our resources and focusing our efforts in the future.

Malcolm Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, which we very much appreciate. We would not have expected him to accede to our requests immediately, but we think that he is up to the challenge. This is not just a question of our saying, “Let’s spend more money.” We have identified specific sectors in which we think that would be useful. We took out of the report a section dealing with where we thought the money should come from, because it is the job of Ministers to prioritise such matters, but if they want to talk to us informally about that, we have some ideas.

ROYAL ASSENT

Eleanor Laing: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2014
	Children and Families Act 2104
	National Insurance Contributions Act 2014
	Citizenship (Armed Forces) Act 2014
	International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014
	Leasehold Reform (Amendment) Act 2014
	Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014
	Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
	Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Badger Cull

Eleanor Laing: Before I call the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) to propose the motion, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. Lady will deliver her speech from a sedentary position. I commend her for coming to the House today; we appreciate that she is recovering from surgery. Given that she is speaking from an unaccustomed position and without the usual aid of an ability to bob up and down or otherwise gesticulate, the delivery of her speech will be more difficult than it would be if she were in her customary position. I am sure that the House will bear that in mind and give her all the support she deserves.

Anne Main: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the pilot badger culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset have decisively failed against the criteria set out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in guidance to Natural England for licensing of the culls, which stipulated that 70 per cent of the badger population should be culled within a six-week period; notes that the costs of policing, additional implementation and monitoring, and the resort to more expensive cage-and-trap methods over an extended period have substantially increased the cost of the culls, and strengthened the financial case for vaccination; regrets that the decision to extend the original culls has not been subject to any debate or vote in Parliament; further regrets that the Independent Expert Panel will only assess the humaneness, safety and effectiveness of the original six-week period and not the extended cull period; and urges the Government to halt the existing culls and granting of any further licences, pending development of alternative strategies to eradicate bovine TB and promote a healthy badger population.
	I thank you for your gracious comments, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the debate will be very well attended and, bearing that in mind, I hope that colleagues will accept that I will not be taking any interventions during my opening remarks. I know that the many right hon. and hon. Members here today will make this a lively and impassioned debate.
	This is a timely debate, coming before any further roll-out of the culls, and particularly in the light of concerns being raised from many quarters about the culls. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting a full day’s debate and vote on the Floor of the House. I have received a large amount of cross-party support for this debate. It is important to note that this is not a matter of one side of the House versus the other. The House wants a chance to vote on this issue and I have made repeated calls for it to be brought back before the House. I tabled my first early-day motion on 25 June last year calling for the matter to return, and 149 Members from both sides of the House supported it. I then tabled another on 31 October asking for a return, which attracted 107 Members. In a well-attended Westminster Hall debate on 11 Dec, I pleaded with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), to bring the matter back before the House. Well, I have brought it back, with the support of many colleagues of all political parties. I hope that colleagues today will examine their consciences and try to do the right thing. I know that this is not an
	easy subject, and that feelings are running high on both sides, but we must not be seen just to be doing something, if we are now convinced that the facts and evidence indicate that we might have taken the wrong approach.

Mark Harper: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Anne Main: I am sorry, but I have indicated that I will not be taking interventions.
	The public might be surprised to learn that the Minister can instigate a cull without having to get the consent of the House. Consequently, there has been no substantive vote in Parliament proactively to adopt a culling strategy. Instead, we have merely had two votes not to adopt one. The two votes on the subject took place in Opposition day debates on 25 October 2012 and 5 June 2013. The most recent vote in the House of Commons, on 5 June, was 299 to 250 against the motion:
	“That this House believes the badger cull should not go ahead.”
	As the House can see, even in an Opposition day debate, the vote was a close one—and that was before we had gleaned all the information about the underperformance of the culls.
	We all accept that the House has had an uneasy relationship with this topic, but we should not be here today to score political points or to try to rehash history. We should be here to examine our current position in a cross-party fashion and to give a strong steer to the Minister as to the next steps we believe he should take. I believe, as I am sure many other hon. Members do, that we should halt the culls and not issue any more licences until a full examination of the failings has been taken into account. That is what the debate is for; it is not a blame game. It is a recognition that hon. Members might wish to change their minds based on the change in facts.
	There is great sympathy with farmers who have experienced heartache and hardship over losing cattle and precious stock to bovine TB. There is also regard for how we as a society treat all animals, but in particular a protected species. This tension has divided the House. I believe that many lent their support to the concept of tackling bovine TB with this strategy, but they did not give their Government permission to carry on regardless—regardless of humaneness, effectiveness or cost.
	Performance criteria for the pilot culls were set by the Government, and they were not arbitrary, but intended to reassure hon. Members and the public that what was being done was an effective way of tackling bovine TB infections and was, crucially, humane. The reason for the 70% kill target within a six-week period was specifically drawn so that sufficient badgers would be killed to ensure that the badgers did not simply go elsewhere, thus spreading the TB more widely.
	This approach reflected extensive research carried out by Professor Woodroffe in trials in the 1990s, which showed that a failure to kill this percentage in a narrow window of time could worsen matters as disturbed diseased animals took TB to new areas. Analysis commissioned by the Government found that the number of badgers killed according to the criteria fell well short of the target deemed necessary, despite the cull being extended and cage shooting being used. We must face
	up to the fact that this House, if we persist and simply roll out more free-shooting culls, may be contributing to an increase in TB in cattle.
	The humaneness test set by Ministers was to ensure that no animal suffered needlessly a protracted, agonising death. Badgers were supposed to be free-shot quickly, efficiently and, importantly, cost-effectively. It is now understood, however, that between 6.4% and 18% of shot animals took more than five minutes to die, and sometimes even as long as 10 minutes or longer. In order to avoid suffering, the standard to be met was that no more than 5% of shot badgers should take more than five minutes to die. An independent expert panel was appointed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to help Ministers to evaluate, against the Government’s own criteria, the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of pilots, and its conclusions are damning.

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Will Opposition Members listen to my point of order? I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend quoting figures from an independent report. Are you aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether that independent report has been placed in the Library of the House or on the Table, so that hon. Members taking part in the debate may reference it? I was not aware that the report had been published.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I may be able to help the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and the House. Today, I received a response from the Minister who is present, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), which clarifies that the report has just arrived on the Secretary of State’s desk. The pursuant question is why, when it was due to be published in February, it has not been published in time for today’s debate.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) for his point of order. It is not in fact a point of order for the Chair, but it is a point that the House has noted. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has been helpful in providing information to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always understood it to be a convention of this House that if any Member quoted from a document in the public domain, the document should be tabled before the debate, to be available to every hon. Member so that they, too, may quote from it. I do not believe that the document is yet in the public domain—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. That rule applies to Ministers; it does not apply to a Back Bencher addressing the House.
	The matter is now at an end. The hon. Member for St Albans is referring to the report, which may come up and be debated for the rest of the afternoon; it is not for the Chair to rule on where the report ought to be. The hon. Lady is quoting from it, and I am sure that
	Members will listen carefully to what she is saying. They will then be able to deal with her points, with or without the report before them.

Anne Main: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that passions are running high in this matter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) must be psychic, because my next words were to be that no one appears to be disputing the comprehensive but leaked report. Whatever the detail, the dispute is about whether we pursue a failed policy, or adopt a new one.
	As Professor Rosie Woodroffe, a scientist at the Zoological Society of London, said, the
	“findings show unequivocally that the culls were not effective”.
	I know that hon. Members say, “We haven’t seen the reports”, but that is not in dispute, unless the Minister whose desk the report has landed on says that it is not in the report. If so, I look forward to hearing it, but I believe what has been widely reported in the media after being leaked comprehensively.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will now focus on other ways of eradicating TB in cattle. If predictions of the findings in the report are borne out, the cull
	“has cost a fortune and probably contributed nothing in terms of disease control, which is really unfortunate.”
	Those are the words of Rosie Woodroffe.
	I am personally disappointed that a DEFRA spokesman has recently said:
	“We knew there’d be lessons to be learned from the first year of the pilot culls which is why we’re looking forward to receiving the panel’s recommendations for improving the way they are carried out.”
	If the House notes those comments carefully, it cannot hear the sound of any culls being stopped, but simply of them being improved. In other words, we are committed to finding a better killing strategy—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is my phone—someone who obviously does not respect the—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. In these unusual circumstances, this incident be overlooked. As I said at the beginning of the debate, these are unusual circumstances; no other Member may take this as a precedent.

Anne Main: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it was a badger ringing me up and willing me on.
	If the House notes the comments, it will hear talk not of culls being stopped but of their being improved. The Government do not have carte blanche to carry on regardless. Hon. Members may dispute the report and whether it has been leaked, but the Government do not have unconditional support to continue with a failed approach, in particular one that causes suffering to a protected species. As Robin Hargreaves, President of the British Veterinary Association said:
	“We have always stated that if the pilots were to fail on humaneness then BVA could not support the wider roll out of the method of controlled shooting”.
	There are colleagues who share those views.
	The pilot culls were supposed to demonstrate a minimum of 70% of badgers killed within six weeks. Despite the badger population estimates being sharply cut and the culls being extended, both pilots failed to meet the minimum 70%. When both trials duly failed to kill sufficient badgers within the specified period, they were extended on the advice of the chief veterinary officer, Nigel Gibbens. The panel’s widely leaked report, although still disputed today, concerns itself with the initial six weeks. This extended the misery, the cost and, if we accept the time scales based on the original pilot criteria, the range of TB spread due to perturbation.
	Do we continue with cruel practices licensed by the Government in order to be seen to be doing something? DEFRA agreed with an expert group the criteria for how the trials could be deemed humane. It was DEFRA’s rules, not some arbitrary figures plucked out of the air. Mark Jones, vet and executive director of the Humane Society International of the UK, said:
	“The government’s boast that all badgers were killed cleanly and killed instantly is clearly not true. We fear many badgers may have suffered significant pain and distress.”
	Andrew Guest, from the National Farmers Union, said of the revelations: “It doesn't sound good”, but added that it was important that a significant number of badgers had been removed.
	Simply getting rid of lots of badgers, regardless of cost, pain or effectiveness, was not the criterion set down by the Government. That is not a good enough reason for this House to support ongoing culls. This House wishes to tackle bovine TB efficiently, effectively and humanely. That is why we need to stop the failed cull policy, not grant any further licences and come up with a better method to tackle TB without inflicting pain and misery on an endangered species. The badger culls were condemned as “mindless” in 2012 by Lord Krebs, who commissioned the 10-year study. The extensions to the culls were criticised by Natural England’s lead scientific director, Sir David Attenborough, and the National Trust.
	We acknowledge the devastation inflicted on farmers and cattle by the scourge of bovine TB. This should not be about the House abandoning their plight, but neither can we ignore the plight of the badgers. Monitoring reports from England’s wildlife watchdog, Natural England, apparently seen by The Guardian and perhaps hotly disputed by some hon. Members, show that a third of the badgers were shot in the wrong part of the body. Apparently, badgers are very hard to shoot, although I would not know as I am not a marksman. Two out of nine badgers had to be shot twice, having not died instantly.
	Professor Woodroffe, who worked on a landmark 10-year study of badger culling, said the conclusion to be drawn was simple:
	“The pilot culls have not been effective.”
	She questioned the multi-million pound cost of the culls and argued that badger vaccination would be cheaper and more effective. So our argument today is probably leading us towards vaccination of badgers and/or cattle. The current available vaccine for badgers, which is injectable, has been shown to reduce the burden of disease in badger populations. An oral badger vaccine is not expected until 2015. I know there is some concern that vaccines may not be as effective as we would hope,
	or be licensed and come on line quickly enough, but if the current shoot-to-kill approach is also deeply flawed we should endeavour to strengthen and prioritise all the non-lethal methods in order to find a humane solution.
	Many hon. Members and wildlife lovers believe that is the only way forward, unless we are to decide to keep slaughtering badgers in perpetuity to eliminate a reservoir of TB in badgers, many of which will have been infected by other species or cattle. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth told the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) in DEFRA questions that the Government
	“'accepts that there is a range of measures we should pursue, including developing vaccines, and we are doing some work to develop an oral vaccine for badgers as well as on cattle vaccines. We are considering other measures such as contraception for badgers and increased cattle movement controls, so we are covering a range of issues as we try to solve this difficult problem.”—[Official Report, 13 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 998.]
	That answer shows that the Minister recognises the value of these other strands of TB control, and I hope that he will commit today to redoubling his efforts on those fronts. Today, we need to urge the Government not only to speed up their work on vaccines, particularly of the oral kind, and redouble their efforts on enforcing biosecurity and cattle movements, but, most importantly, to stop this inhumane slaughter of badgers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call speakers from the Back Benches, may I say that it will be obvious to the House that a large number of Members wish to speak this afternoon and so, as a courtesy to other Members, it would be helpful if Members limited their speeches to about eight or nine minutes? If they do so, everyone will have the chance to be heard.

Angela Smith: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will bear those comments in mind. Let me start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), whom I have the privilege of following. She has shown astounding bravery and dedication in turning up for this debate so quickly after major surgery.
	This debate is important not just for wildlife, but for the cattle industry, the dairy industry and the farming industry more generally. We need to acknowledge that and put it on the table at the very beginning. We all acknowledge the importance of tackling bovine TB. The debate on this issue so far has, to some extent, been polarised, so today’s debate is an opportunity to bring the House together to forge a new consensus on how to tackle this difficult problem.
	I wish to focus on three aspects of the debate. First, I wish to deal with how the outcomes of the recently completed pilot culls differ from and deviate from those of the randomised badger culling trial, which took place a few years ago. Secondly, given the time limits, I wish briefly to refer to the alternatives. Thirdly, I wish to refer to the Bow Group recommendations on how to proceed in the future, which are incredibly interesting and constructive.

David Heath: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Smith: Very briefly, because I am aware of the need to keep my contribution short.

David Heath: I appreciate that, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Given that a lot of people wish to find a degree of consensus on this issue, I am genuinely curious as to why the motion makes no mention of the comprehensive strategy developed by the Government last year, which includes things such as polymerase chain reactor recognition of infected setts; an edge of disease strategy; greater biosecurity; and the routes to infected vaccines. Why is none of that mentioned in a debate that is supposed to be bringing the House together?

Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated much of what I am going to say about the constructive way forward.
	The first and most important point to make about the pilot culls relates to the meeting of the scientific experts convened by DEFRA in April 2011, which drew two key conclusions about the pilot culls. The first was that the culls needed to be
	“conducted in a co-ordinated, sustained and simultaneous manner”
	over a short time period in order to minimise potential impacts of perturbation. The second key point was that
	“the more that a future culling policy deviates from the conditions of the RBCT…the more likely it is that the effects of that policy will differ”.
	Those two important points are at the heart of today’s debate. They explain why a target was set of a 70% reduction in badger density in the cull areas in six weeks, but we find—this is not because of the independent expert panel report—that Natural England withdrew licences after 11 weeks of culling in both zones because it was evident that there was no hope of reaching the target number of badgers.
	I wish briefly to address why the targets of 70% and six weeks were chosen. The six-week target was set by DEFRA in the context of the lessons learned by the RBCT, which found that the proactive culls that were completed across entire areas in eight to 11 nights had a much higher likelihood of delivering a positive impact than the prolonged culls—the reactive culls that took place—over more than 12 nights. The risk of the latter is that TB in badgers is further elevated and thus it is expected that any benefits in relation to reducing cattle TB are undermined.

Meg Munn: The number of badgers in the area was one of the issues raised in previous debates. Obviously, the 70% target is dependent on having a reasonable estimate of the number of badgers in a particular area, and I understood that not to be available.

Angela Smith: This is the “badgers moving the goalposts” argument, which repeatedly comes back to haunt this debate. The important thing is to have accurate numbers, not least because we do not want to break the Bern convention, and therefore the law, in terms of taking the risk of eradicating an entire species.
	On four occasions, the RBCT conducted non-simultaneous culls—this comes back to the point about the short period of time, as they went on over a prolonged period. It was found—the evidence is there—that there was an increase in the proportion of badgers infected, over and above the background norm of the increase in numbers infected by the proactive culling.
	In 2010, DEFRA’s science advisory council said:
	“There is little useful data on the issue of what time period should be considered as ‘simultaneous’. The Group advised that if culling was carried out in a period of up to 6 weeks (although preferably less), that is likely to reduce the adverse effects of non-simultaneous culling; this advice is based on opinion and not on evidence. The longer the period that culling is carried out in, the less confident one can be that the deleterious effects seen with non-simultaneous culling as carried out in the RBCT will be minimized.”
	That is from DEFRA’s own science advisory council. It is absolutely clear that the pilot culls took a fairly significant risk in planning to meet the six-week target. The fact that they failed comprehensively to meet that target supports the claim in the independent expert panel report that the pilot culls were ineffective; they took 63 and 77 nights respectively. Remember that the randomised badger culling trial found that to maximise impact, a cull should take place over eight to 11 nights.

Roger Williams: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Smith: I will give way just one more time, because a lot of people want to speak.

Roger Williams: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She said that the randomised badger culling trials occurred over 10 to 11 days, but of course they failed miserably to reduce the number of badgers in a way that met their objective.

Angela Smith: The reactive culling in the RBCT did fail. That is not the point. I am talking about proactive culling, which is best carried out over eight to 11 days. Reactive culling is when one kills the badgers in a small area—a hot spot—and does not go back again. The proactive culling is done over a bigger area—that is the important point—annually. It is a much more scientific approach to culling. Reactive culling does not work at all; in fact, it makes the problem a lot worse.
	The 70% figure, which is an average, is based on proactive culling. It was demonstrated in the RBCT that it did deliver reductions in cattle TB incidence in the culling zone on a gradual basis. There was, however, a rapid but diminishing increase outside the zone. That is where the 16% figure in the RBCT report comes from. It is often not reported, however, that the 16% figure was based on a scenario that was more optimistic about the potential beneficial impact of culling overall. In fact, the average reduction over nine years was 12%. That is why the Independent Study Group on Cattle TB said that culling could not deliver any meaningful reduction in bovine TB. That is the key point.
	Reactive culling reduced badger density by 30% and elevated cattle TB; that is the point that I was making earlier. The problem is that it is not known scientifically where between 30% and 70% removal an effect on TB is
	achieved, hence the importance of the 70% target. Scientifically, it is the only target that one can use to measure effectiveness.
	In summary, the requirement to kill at least 70% of local badgers within six weeks was not an arbitrary target. It was a scientifically driven target. As I have said, the six-week target was set because prolonged culling over more than 12 nights further elevates TB in badgers and is expected to undermine any benefits for cattle TB control. In terms of both the length of the culling period and the targets for numbers killed, the pilot culls failed comprehensively. That prompts questions about the future of culling. If we are to go ahead with more culling, Ministers have to answer this key point: killing effectively, over less than six weeks, will require far more marksmen and far greater resources, so that we can do the work simultaneously. One of the key lessons to be learned from the pilot culls is that we would need much greater resources to do the job, and I am not convinced that taxpayers are prepared to pay for that kind of resource.
	It was found in the end that the pilot culling had to make use of cage trapping in addition to free-shooting. That points to the need for much greater resources. If we include policing in the costs, we are looking at more than £4,000 per badger shot in the pilot culls. On the alternative, vaccination costs £2,250 per square kilometre covered. When looking at cage trapping, and whether to vaccinate or cull, we have to remember that vaccination is much cheaper, partly because policing costs are removed from the equation, but also because with vaccination there is no need to dispose of the carcases of badgers culled. We all know that there is a massive army of volunteers ready to help the Government conduct the vaccination. In fact, there is already an initiative to deliver vaccination on a wider scale.
	I quickly want to refer to the other important part of the alternative.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady will very soon draw her remarks to a close.

Angela Smith: Of course I will, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	It must be remembered that cattle testing and movement is an important part of all this. Vaccination, cattle movement and testing, and biosecurity make up the package of measures that we need in order to move forward. I am sure that other Members will refer to some of the details.
	In concluding, I want to refer to the Bow Group report, an excellent piece of work from the right of the political spectrum. We have the spectacle of a Labour MP recommending a Tory report, but it is an excellent report—thorough, sensible, and evidence-based. It has a number of recommendations, all of which are sensible. I want to focus quickly on three key recommendations. The report recommends that farmers no longer be allowed to move their herds from one of their farms to another without pre-movement testing. That is an important point, because currently they are allowed to do so. They should not be allowed to move their herds to agricultural shows or common land without pre-movement testing.
	The report recommends more testing and increased use of the gamma interferon test, alongside the currently used test. I understand that the Government have moved on all this, but the report makes it clear that more needs to be done. Importantly, it recommends field trials of cattle vaccine, as recommended by the European Commissioner only last November, but so far we have heard nothing from DEFRA on when it will move ahead with that.
	The Commons has an opportunity today to move on the issue and forge a new consensus. We should build on initiatives already taken by DEFRA on cattle movement and testing, and on biosecurity; and we should carry out vaccination on a comprehensive scale, and drop the culling.

Anne McIntosh: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith).
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing the debate, on leading it with her sterling contribution, and on showing such strength in such difficult circumstances. I absolutely agree with her that we have to learn to treat all animals, whether farm or wild, the same. We need to consider the implications of the economics of the case. I am sure that others will give more detail, but we have to recognise that the number of new cases of bovine TB is on the rise; it is doubling every nine years. In the 10 years to last November, 310,000 cattle across Great Britain were slaughtered, and last year, between January and November alone, 30,377 otherwise healthy cattle were slaughtered—an average of over 90 a day. In the last 10 years, bovine TB has cost the taxpayer £500 million, and there is an expectation that that will rise to £1 billion over the next decade.

Stephen Lloyd: rose—

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Anne McIntosh: I will take two interventions now, and then no more.

Stephen Lloyd: I appreciate that the figures are still high, but does my hon. Friend agree that a recent report shows that in 2013 there was a significant drop of 14% in the incidence of TB in cattle, and the rate that the disease is spreading also declined by 7% in 2013? The figures are going down.

Anne McIntosh: I stand by the figures that I have just given.

Mark Pritchard: Does my hon. Friend agree that animal welfare campaigners and farmers want to see healthy cattle and badgers, and that is why I welcome her preamble? Does she also agree that this Government should focus on vaccines, as the last Government should have?

Anne McIntosh: I will come on to vaccines.
	I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans and the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said. The House is very short of alternatives. If we are to have a mature, intelligent debate, the House and the public need to consider what the realistic alternatives
	are. The badger population was in decline and was given protection in the 1970s, for very good reason, but when we see the extent to which the population has grown and the implications for the spread of bovine TB, the position is very serious. I have two auction marts in my constituency, one in Thirsk and one in Malton, and the implications of the cattle restrictions generally are difficult for them.
	I want to make a general point about the six-day rule. I understand the position with regard to the cattle restrictions relating to bovine TB that are in place in the south-west, and the need for a swift response to any potential animal disease. But, particularly at red cattle marts such as Thirsk, the operation of the six-day rule, as intensive and as regulated as it is, is having a negative impact. Many livestock producers will not take their cattle or sheep to mart—it is true that there are fewer pigs now—on the basis that they may not be able to obtain the price that they need and they will have to go to slaughter anyway. I hope that the Minister will look favourably at reviewing the six-day rule. It could be brought back swiftly if need be.
	The sad fact, which has been demonstrated in today’s debate, is that not many of us living in Britain today have close rural roots. When a pilot cull was introduced in Ireland, it proceeded smoothly, effectively, clinically, and virtually without disruption. Do the Government have anything to learn from the conduct of the Irish cull? The fact that many of us now live metropolitan lifestyles leads, regrettably, to an increasing misunderstanding of animal husbandry and welfare issues.
	In the few moments that I have left I want to commend to the House the work of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on vaccination against bovine TB and the Government’s response. I am delighted to record that both Front-Bench teams were well represented on the Committee when it took evidence. We looked carefully at injectable vaccine for badgers, oral vaccine for badgers and oral vaccine for cattle. There are difficulties with each that we can rehearse this afternoon, but will the Minister update the House today on where we are, particularly with regard to reaching agreement in Brussels with our European partners and at home on each of those matters?
	I pay tribute to the work of the Food and Environment Research Agency in Sand Hutton in Thirsk and Malton—

Bill Wiggin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Anne McIntosh: I am reaching a conclusion.
	FERA is doing work on sterilisation. Oral contraception has been referred to, and the sterilisation of the badger population would be welcome, but it will inevitably have a cost implication. There are also questions about its practicality. It would make sense for the Minister to update us today on that work and to review its cost implications and practicality. That could be a real alternative. I was not aware of it until the Select Committee had the opportunity to visit FERA. Today’s debate is particularly timely as we consider the alternatives to produce a healthy cattle and a healthy badger population.

Russell Brown: I rise in support of the motion. I congratulate colleagues on both sides of the House who tabled the motion and
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling the debate to take place. It has become clear over recent weeks and months that some colleagues who initially supported a cull are now beginning seriously to question that position. I thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who, I appreciate, has now left the Chamber, because she was one of the first people to draw to my attention some serious reservations about what the Government had done.
	The starting point on this issue and the common ground we are probably all on is that we do have a serious problem in England with bovine TB. So how do we reach agreement on reducing the scale of the problem, leading hopefully to its eradication? Both sides need to be honest. Under the previous Government we spent 10 years and some £50 million on trialling culls, and the outcome was no real meaningful contribution to eradicating TB in cattle. With the recent pilot culls we have witnessed an abject failure for farmers, taxpayers and wildlife.
	The two pilot culls failed to achieve their own success criterion of culling 70% of badgers in six weeks. Against sound science, they were extended and spectacularly failed again to cull target numbers. The leaked IEP report shows that DEFRA failed to meet its main test for humaneness, as we have already heard this afternoon and will no doubt hear again—

Mark Harper: I take a particular interest because one of the cull areas covered a significant part of my constituency, and I am interested in the humaneness of the tests. I think that today’s debate, in asking the House to take a view, is premature. I meant what I said. I was disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) did not take my intervention, which was why I raised a point of order. I want to see that report in its entirety to be able to make a judgment about the cull as carried out and also, if the culls continue, whether there need to be any changes. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the House needs to see that report before it can reach a proper decision?

Russell Brown: I respect the hon. Gentleman, but his own Government, Ministers and the Secretary of State have done nothing to give anyone any confidence in what was going on. Perhaps we will hear from the Minister later, but the constant delay has done nothing more than make people extremely suspicious about what was going on. It was almost as if there was an attempt to find reasons why what was done was correct. So he and I will have to part company there because I am not convinced that what he is saying is correct.

Emily Thornberry: Does my hon. Friend agree that that shows the danger of Governments trying to be seen to be doing something when they have no idea what to do? In this case, it has resulted in great cruelty and a failure.

Russell Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Let us be honest: from time to time, we in this Chamber should realise that no one side has a monopoly on the answers to the problems, whether those problems are in our rural communities or our cities, although we must recognise that certain views sometimes need to be more respected on certain occasions.
	I was referring to the leaked report and to the issue of humaneness. It has been suggested that no more than 5% of the badgers should take more than five minutes to die, but the IEP found that the actual figure was between 6.4% and 18%. Over time, the Opposition have made a series of reasonable, rational and, importantly, cross-party requests of the Government, none of which have been met to date.

Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Government entered into this with a preconceived idea about their approach and with a closed mind, particularly the Secretary of State? As anybody who has watched any of the television interviews knows, he would not consider anything else, but his methods have led to abject failure.

Russell Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which takes me back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). It is about making it look as if something is being done, but, all too often, it results in even more damage.

Martin Horwood: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the badger cull was the wrong thing to do and that we should have followed Scotland’s example, as it achieved BTB-free status in 2009 without culling anything. However, he must acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), which he also announced when he was a Minister: the Government have also done the right thing by restricting cattle movement, which is probably a contributory factor in the fact that bovine TB incidence is now falling in England.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Mr Brown, you are being very generous in giving way to other Members, but may I gently remind you that we have agreed to keep our remarks to eight or nine minutes, including interventions? I hope that will mean that those intervening will eventually be able to speak.

Russell Brown: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must say that I have been known to be generous to a fault on many an occasion.
	All I can say to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) is that I had not realised that my writing was that large, as he has obviously seen what I am about to say. The story is totally different in other parts of the UK. In Wales, there has been a significant and substantial reduction in the disease, with decline at twice the rate of that in England. That has been achieved without culling but with badger vaccination and stringent measures on cattle that have been handled properly. In Northern Ireland, bovine TB is declining at a faster rate than in the south, where culling is taking place. As the hon. Gentleman has said, in Scotland we are fortunate—I shall put it no more strongly than that—to be clear of bovine TB, but we are not complacent and tight biosecurity is in place.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) is absolutely correct that this is about biosecurity and vaccination. Whether Members will accept it or not, there is a small army of volunteers who want to engage with farmers and others to try to eradicate the disease through a vaccination scheme.
	Professor Rosie Woodroffe, a leading badger ecologist, questioned the licence extensions and their potential to increase the spread of TB through perturbation. She said that going from six to 14 weeks, as happened in the Gloucestershire cull area, was uncharted territory—so it is about things being seen to be done rather than about grappling with the issue. In November, she said:
	“It is not unreasonable to expect that as you prolong the cull and you prolong increased badger movement, you increase the detrimental effects.”
	In December, she said:
	“It’s very likely that so far this cull will have increased the TB risk for cattle inside the Gloucestershire cull zone rather than reducing it…Culling low numbers of badgers, over a prolonged period, during these winter months, are all associated with increased TB.”
	I hope that those who are now thinking seriously about what has happened will realise that it is an issue not of crying over spilt milk but of seeing that we have it wrong and asking about the scale on which we have it wrong. I hope that Members will support the consideration of vaccination and tight biosecurity so that we can make some moves towards eradicating this terrible disease from our countryside.

Bill Wiggin: Unlike those of the previous speakers, my constituents have cattle. They also have experience of TB and are wrestling with the problem.
	I am sorry that the debate is taking place at all. I have a great deal of respect for the Backbench Business Committee, but it would have been considerably more helpful if it had waited to hold the debate until after the report had been published. If we have a scientific report, it is worth reading it before having the debate.

Huw Irranca-Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned once again the IEP report and it might help the House to know that we now know, as I have had a response today, that the report is available and on the desk of the Secretary of State. May I ask through you whether the Minister and officials, through their good offices, could produce that immediately and put it in the Library? We still have time to look at it and consider it in the debate. That would help all Members.

Dawn Primarolo: That is clearly not a matter for the Chair, but the Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point and, as he has said, there is plenty of time left in the debate at the moment.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to you for your judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unlike the shadow Minister, I do not have access to the Secretary of State’s desk. Even if he has the report, I have not seen it and neither have my hon. Friends. Even if it is available today, we should have read it before we had the debate.
	Let me return to the core of the debate, which is science and whether the Government have paid sufficient attention to the scientific detail and acted accordingly. It is wrong in every way to base an argument on a leaked report before its conclusions are in the public domain. Whatever our view, particularly if we are unsure about badger culling, we should take some comfort in
	knowing that before the Government roll out the policy across the country they test it with pilot schemes. Further comfort should be taken from the fact that they ensure that effectiveness and humaneness are the key factors that are tested.
	We might find it hard to know without references from scientists whether a badger dies quickly or slowly when hit by a bullet. We might want to know whether the number of badgers culled is sufficient to prevent the spread of bovine TB. We cannot know these things unless the experts have published their reports, yet we are discussing the issue without the report. I can see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), waving bits of paper at me, but I want the constituents we all represent to have the same information as everybody in this House when we comment on this.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Given that we are talking about the pilot cull and the House is being asked to make a decision about whether the cull should be rolled out, the point is not just about the report. If the report makes recommendations, we will want to know the Government response to them. We want the considered view of the Secretary of State and if he has only just received the report, he needs time to digest it and make some decisions.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend is, as always, absolutely right.

Angela Smith: Even if we do not have the IEP report, we know that the pilot culls took 11 weeks rather than the RBCT’s recommended maximum of 11 nights. That means that the pilot culls have failed, does it not?

Bill Wiggin: I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that I have been generous in giving way to her, because she had quite a long time to have her say. I regret bitterly that in her speech she did not condemn the activities of people protesting that might have meant that the tests took longer. She should have done that, because whatever the report concludes about the trials, it is indisputable that what applies to one species should apply to the others. If we cull cattle, we should cull badgers. If we vaccinate badgers, we should vaccinate cattle. It is inconsistent treatment of one species or the other that damages disease control. That is proven by the spread of the disease and the inconsistent record of the previous Government.

Caroline Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bill Wiggin: Yes, I will give way, although I must not give way much more.

Caroline Lucas: The words that the hon. Gentleman has just spoken are scientifically so wrong. All the evidence that we have seen demonstrates precisely that the strategy taken should depend on what species we are talking about and on the ecology. Just because culling makes sense in one context with one species at one time, it makes no sense to say that that means it is okay to do it in a different environment. The circumstances matter, not the general principle.

Bill Wiggin: I am delighted that the hon. Lady is so completely and utterly wrong. The joy of that is that the evidence is before us all. We have seen the disease spread by the policies of people like her. She does not have cattle, she has never done a pre-movement test and she does not know what she is talking about. Unfortunately, this is too serious a subject for her to pontificate on. If she was right, the disease would not have spread in the way that it has.
	I would like to see far better skin tests. The old skin test is extremely iffy. It gave my bull, Jackeroo, a false Johne’s disease result. Happily, he subsequently proved to be free of the disease. I would like to see gamma interferon more readily available to any farmer who gets a skin test reactor. It would also be helpful if the Government were to publish the facts and figures proving that when a gamma interferon test is used, more TB reactors are detected earlier and the chance of getting a future clear test is significantly increased. If that is not possible, DEFRA needs to get us a better test.

Bob Stewart: Very briefly, what does the chief veterinary officer for the Government suggest should happen?

Bill Wiggin: We would love to know. We would love to know what the Government think of the report, but we have not seen it yet.
	I have always preferred vaccination, and I believe that it should be targeted at healthy badger populations where the chance of a badger being infected is low but likely to increase due to their proximity to infected populations. This means vaccinating healthy badgers working inwards, geographically, towards the centre of infection. Professor Woodruff gives an excellent speech on the benefits of an immune population and how we can achieve that. This should also apply to cattle, and I am more than willing to do everything possible to help the Government achieve cattle vaccination.
	There are endless arguments to suggest that vaccination is better than culling. I am more than willing to accept those arguments, but they cannot apply unless they apply to both species. We need to redouble our efforts to prevent damage to our export markets from vaccinating cattle. It is not widely known that meat from infected cows showing less than one lesion already makes its way into the food chain. It is also the case that milk from an infected cow is safe to drink after it has been pasteurised. Therefore, there is no reason why pasteurised milk and vet-inspected meat should not be available for export from vaccinated cattle. I think the House may find that it already is.
	After the pathetic European response to the horsemeat scandal, I do not believe that the European Union has a strong case to ban our exports. The response from the European Commission is unhelpful and is another reason why, if for no other, we should leave the EU. I hope the Secretary of State will join me in campaigning to leave the European Union and one of the benefits will be that we can vaccinate our cattle.
	If we are going to base our decisions on science, we should ensure that the scientists have been heard.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bill Wiggin: No.
	Today’s debate is unworthy of a Division and I hope that the House will not divide until it has had time to read and digest the report.

Martin Horwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bill Wiggin: No.
	If the EU is going to ban our exports if we vaccinate, it should do so on proper health grounds. It will not be able to achieve that. If the Opposition object to scientific pilot schemes, they must apply the same science to badgers and to cattle equally. For 14 miserable years they did not do that. If the Government want to beat this disease scientifically, they will have to analyse what the scientists say and allow us to act within the law.
	It is worth pointing out that there are many who believe that if the pilot culls are a failure, we should revisit gassing. I hope I am not alone in saying that I would hate to see that. Ultimately the House should unite in wanting to see healthy badgers, healthy cattle and healthy people. Unless we are consistent, scientific and determined, we shall be beaten by a minuscule bacteria, and this is not a fight we can afford to lose.

Barry Sheerman: I shall be brief as I am the least expert person trying to catch Madam Deputy Speaker’s eye and I am lucky to have done so so early in the debate. As a sponsor of the debate, my credentials are possibly the fact that I have a history of taking up relatively unpopular views. I do not win over many friends, certainly not on the Opposition Benches.
	Members who have been in the House for some time remember that I was passionately against the hunting with dogs Bill—one of the few Labour Members to take that view. I remember trying to make that case. As someone who once had a smallholding and lost chickens and ducks to a fox, I never saw a more effective way of getting a fox than when some people turned up with hounds and on horse. I made myself very unpopular because I did not believe in gassing, lamping and so on; I wanted an evaluation of the best possible method. I made many enemies on the Labour Benches, but I do not mind taking an unpopular view on occasion.
	This should be a cross-party debate conducted in harmony. For 10 years I chaired a Select Committee, and my watchword was always that we should be guided by evidence-based policy, where we can get it. I have read as much as I can from the House of Commons Library and every document that I have found as the badger culling debate goes on, and I have come to the conclusion that the evidence shows that bovine TB is a calamity. I have many farming friends who are desperate because friends of theirs have had it on their farms. It drives farmers to desperation and in some tragic cases to suicide when they get bovine TB and lose a cherished herd that they have bred.
	My heart goes out to the farming community when they do not understand why DEFRA and the Government cannot grapple with the problem and get it sorted. This debate should be about how we get it sorted. I did not agree with all the characteristically robust remarks of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin).
	He is toeing the party line a bit today, but I agreed with him about the science. All the science shows that the cull has not worked. The pilot has not worked and has probably made the situation much worse.
	There are some amusing aspects to the process. At the time of the flooding I found myself ringing round the House of Commons Library and all sorts of technical friends to find out whether badgers can swim. I found out, to my surprise, that when they have to, badgers can swim. That made quite a hole in some of the boundaries that DEFRA was drawing, thinking that badgers would not cross water. I believe in evidence. I believe that the issue must be sorted. I cannot see any way forward, apart from vaccination. I believe that we must vaccinate both cows and badgers in order to sort the problem out. Let us do it.
	There has been some argy-bargy today about whether we have seen the final report. We are all grown up men and women and we know there is a reason why the report has only reached the desk of the Secretary of State today and we do not have it for this debate, which everyone knew was coming up because we applied for it weeks ago. We know that games are being played.
	I am chair of the John Clare Trust. If anybody wants to see the finest poem about badgers ever written by a human being, they should look up John Clare’s poem “The Badger”. For hundreds of years human beings have treated badgers appallingly, baiting them for pleasure, and I do not want to be associated with that in the modern form of culling them. They are a form of animal life that we should respect and love, and I do, as I love and respect the fox and cattle. Indeed, as some Members of the House will know, I have been involved in another long-running campaign, which is related to the distaste for veal. Due to some bad publicity 30 years ago, almost every little boy calf born in this country is shot at birth and incinerated. That is dreadfully wrong. Now, at long last, we are getting rose veal coming back. I have respect for all sorts of animals.
	Today is the chance to stop the silly disagreements over this matter. Every one in this House and in this country wants an end to them. We do not want the politics of “let’s have a cull to keep the farmers happy”. There is a bit of Government policy—I am talking about this Government and the previous one—that smacks of that. Let us today agree that there are scientific answers. We need a serious discussion with the European Union, and among ourselves, on how we evaluate the evidence and get this dreadful disease sorted. That is what farmers and lovers of wildlife want and what every Member of this House should want.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted, Madam Deputy Speaker, to catch your eye in this debate. I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interests. However, although I am a farmer, I do not have any cattle and therefore do not have any financially beneficial interests to declare.
	I take no pleasure in talking about this dreadful disease. I am sure that everyone here today can at least agree that we have a serious problem. Given that the UK has the third largest dairy production and the fourth largest beef production in the EU in an industry worth about £8.4 billion, I want to ensure that that
	industry is not in any way jeopardised. We should all agree that badgers are at least part of the problem. Professor Donnelly has stated that nearly 50% of bovine TB incidents can be attributed to infectious badgers.
	I think that this should be a cross-party issue. I hope that Members on both Front Benches can agree on a TB eradication policy, because whoever wins the next election will want to continue with it. I think that this debate is premature, and that it is impossible to come to some of the conclusions mentioned in the motion until the full copy of the report is available. I gather that the Government are about to publish a TB strategy, and until it is available and the Secretary of State has had a realistic chance to consider the report and the way the Government will go forward, we should not have this debate. Indeed, the timing now is unfortunate.
	On 2 April, the Royal Society is to hold a high-powered seminar on the subject, to which I intend to go to learn the very latest scientific opinion. I agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that we should proceed on the basis of sound science—that obviously makes sense—and of cross-party agreement.
	I stress to the House that we are talking about only trials. Let us try to learn the lesson from the trials. The lesson may be that we do not continue with them, that we do continue with them or that we continue with them in a different way. Let us at least try to learn it, and do it sensibly and maturely and in a low-key manner.

Mel Stride: Does my hon. Friend also agree that we should learn lessons from other countries? The fact is there is no country in the world that has got on top of bovine TB without addressing its presence in the wildlife population. Ireland, which has culls, has reduced bovine TB by a third in recent years.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend brings me to the very last paragraph of my speech. In the Republic of Ireland, from 2008 to 2013, there has been a 50% reduction in the number of reactors—from 29,900 down to 15,612. For the first time ever, the Government of the Republic of Ireland think that they may well be able to reach TB-free status, which is what we should be aiming for in this country. What we want to see is healthy cattle and healthy badgers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have a choice over whom to give way to.

Tracey Crouch: Is my hon. Friend also aware that Northern Ireland, which has never culled badgers and has no badger intervention in any place, has achieved a reduction of 12%, compared with only 8.9% in the Irish Republic?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Common sense and logic should say to my hon. Friend that a 50% reduction in the south must have an effect on the north because there are fewer badgers. Without the culling in the south, there would not have been the reduction in the north.

Albert Owen: rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, but it will be the last intervention I take as we have been asked to be brief.

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman talked about countries. Wales is a country within the United Kingdom, and in February the Minister said that, between December 2012 and November 2013, 33% fewer cattle have been slaughtered because of TB. That is evidence from an area within the United Kingdom where no culling has taken place.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am not an expert on Wales, and I am sure that others who are situated in Wales will wish to speak in this debate and to refute that point. I simply note that there have been only three expressions of interests to extend the injectable trial in Wales. I suggest that that is because it is proving more difficult to carry out than the Welsh Government expected.
	I wish to address my final few remarks to the culls and the lessons that are available to us. Although peaceful demonstration is perfectly acceptable, deliberate obstruction is not. Even less acceptable is the destruction of several hundred traps, which are private property and expensive items. That is what happened in Gloucestershire, and it was unacceptable. On learning the lessons, I concede—this is contrary to my former opinion—that the free-shooting of badgers is proving more difficult than was originally intended. In future trials, I expect that we will move towards the cage trapping of badgers and humane despatch, which seems to be a more satisfactory method than free-shooting. None the less, we will always need free-shooting to back up that system, because some badgers will never go into a trap; they are trap shy.
	Much has been said about the one leaked sentence from the report that stated that a number of badgers took five minutes to die. I understand that that was now long it took the person who shot the badger to reach the badger and verify that it was dead. If there are a lot of obstructions in their way, it could well take more than five minutes to get from the place where the shot has been fired to retrieving the badger and proving that it is dead. However, those are all matters of speculation. We simply do not know, because we have not seen the report. When we get the report, we will be much better informed.
	Many people seem to be concerned about the number of badgers that are being culled—roughly a few thousand in both trials. They should contrast that with the 30,000 cattle that have to be slaughtered each year under the TB regulations. I understand that many Members in this House are deeply concerned about animal welfare, as indeed am I having had a parent who owned stock all their life, but they should think of this. When a cow is slaughtered under the unacceptable halal regime, it routinely takes more than five minutes for them to die. If the anti-cull brigade would focus its attention on that, it really would be doing some good.
	Much has been said in this debate about vaccination. I understand that the Secretary of State, in a recent conversation with the EU Commissioner, was told that it is likely to be at least 10 years before a licensed cattle vaccine is available. We simply cannot leave our farmers in limbo for that long. Even when a licensed cattle vaccine becomes available, we need an acceptable skin test—a DIVA test—that will distinguish between vaccinated
	cattle and cattle that have the disease. Under the current BCG—Bacille de Calmette et Guérin—test, if an animal is vaccinated it will show up as having the disease. Members seems to think that a cattle vaccine is an easy thing to achieve, but the real question we must ask ourselves is whether countries around the world, let alone in the EU, will take our cattle exports if they have been vaccinated. That is a really big matter.
	I am clear that culling on its own is not the answer, but neither is vaccination on its own. It would be if we had an oral vaccine that we could deliver to badgers, just as we did to foxes when we got rid of rabies on the continent. An oral vaccine has been just around the corner for the entire 22 years I have been a Member of Parliament, yet we still do not know when it is likely to appear.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) said, all around the world it has not been possible to eliminate a disease in cattle where there is a large wildlife vector. Whether it is white-tailed deer in Michigan, badgers in the Republic of Ireland or possums in New Zealand, in order to eradicate the disease in cattle we have to eradicate it in wildlife. I want to see a cold, sober debate in which the scientific evidence is fully evaluated, and I want the Government, hopefully on a cross-party basis if the Opposition will agree, to introduce a policy that will work. Let us ensure that we eliminate this dreadful disease once and for all.

Geoffrey Robinson: I speak in this debate very much as a layman. I am not a farmer or an expert on the scientific issues, and I do not think that we have the disease in Coventry, so I cannot even claim a constituency interest, but I have a deep hatred of unnecessary suffering in animals, and so much of it goes on, with vivisection and all the rest of it. Where there is no compelling evidence that such suffering is necessary, we must seriously question our consciences and our policies.
	I am also aware, as I am sure is every Back Bencher—I heard the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made at a party meeting last night and again today—that this horrid and hideous disease is hated right across the country. We feel deeply for the farmers who are wrestling with it on their farms. The worst thing we can do when we cannot see a way forward is grasp at the nearest solution that might do some good. The Government will then say, “We have no confidence that this will work, but if you want to pay for it, we’ll license it,” and that is when we know that we are at a dead loss. That is shown by the figures, because there has been a catastrophic failure—it cannot be considered anything else. It is not scientific evidence, but empirical evidence of people not being able to shoot enough badgers. It is as simple as that.

Andy Sawford: I met farmers in my constituency to discuss the cull, and they did not believe that it would be effective. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the remarks about suffering made by Professor David Macdonald, who chairs Natural England’s science advisory committee:
	“I fear there will be two tragic losers, the farmers who are paying the crippling bill for extending this trial and the badgers whose lives may be lost for little purpose.”
	Is that not the case?

Geoffrey Robinson: I thoroughly agree and thank my hon. Friend for that apposite intervention.
	The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who represents a farming constituency, and who indeed is a farmer himself, was right when he said that vaccination would not have been an absolute solution for mad cow disease and that it is not yet a science-based solution to this problem. I will mention in passing something I read in the March edition of a scientific journal—I do not suppose many colleagues will have heard of it. It talked about novel particulate vaccines utilising polyester nanoparticles, or bio-beads, which I assume would be ingested orally, that work rather counter-intuitively with the animals and could be a way forward. I do not know about that, but it is clear to me that much less research is now being done. Could not all the money that is being spent—wasted, frankly—on the culls be put into vaccine research? Ultimately, that is the only solution. A vaccine will not be a silver bullet, but it could be effective alongside all the measures the Government are considering, as part of a shared policy.
	I will end my remarks by joining Members on both sides of the Chamber in saying how great it is that this debate has been arranged by the Backbench Business Committee. It is absolutely perfect. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds is perhaps lucky that the report is not yet out. If it had been, he might have had much less to say. He must accept that there is never a perfect time for these things. I congratulate the Committee, because I think that this has been one of the best debates.

Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend not think that there is sufficient evidence from Scotland showing how the vaccine worked there?

Geoffrey Robinson: To be honest, I do not know. I have read as much as I can. But I do know from the evidence so far that a vaccine would be much more humane and, if we put the resources into getting it, much more likely to succeed, taken with other measures, than the culls. The culls are counter-productive, because they are spreading the disease. They are miles off their targets. I cannot imagine why farmers would want to waste more money on them. I hope that the Government and the Opposition will now get together to find a way forward, because it is urgently needed. It is a challenge, but there is no better time to get a cross-party policy on the matter.

Andrew George: It is a pleasure to contribute to a debate on this subject, as I have done on a number of occasions. It is important to commence my remarks, following those of the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), by saying that, coming from a rural constituency, and indeed a farming background, I think that the important point needs to be repeated once again: what we are talking about is the impact of a disease on the lives and livelihoods of farmers and their families. The impact of this terrible disease is, I believe, the biggest issue the farming industry currently faces, certainly south of the border.
	Given all that, I think that we need to be reminded why we are here. Sadly, this is not about the welfare of the badger—of course, it should be—but about the future of the farming industry. It was on that basis that I first engaged with this issue, at the beginning of the
	randomised badger culling trials some 15 years ago. I was a member of the then Agriculture Select Committee that was looking at the issue and I strongly supported the roll-out of what was effectively evidence-based policy making introduced by the previous Government, and indeed proposed by Professor Krebs as a result of some earlier work under the previous Conservative Government. It was about building up an evidence base on which to go forward with a policy to bear down on this terrible disease, which is having a devastating effect on livestock farmers, especially in some parts of the country, such as west Cornwall.

Bob Stewart: Is this debate not about the welfare of cattle, the welfare of badgers and the fact that this horrid disease is spreading across the country more and more? We have to do something to find a solution.

Andrew George: Absolutely. This is, of course, about the impact the disease has on a whole range of wildlife, including badgers, but the primary focus, and the reason this is being driven, is the economic, emotional and social impact it has on the farming community and the viability of many marginal livestock farmers, particularly in my part of the world.

Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman talks about evidence, and I think that we all agree totally that that is the right way forward. Does he not accept that the Government ignored the evidence and just went ahead with the culls? Everything that they were warned would happen has indeed come to pass.

Andrew George: I am on the record as having cautioned the Government about the roll-out of the two pilot cull projects.
	I want to ground my comments on the evidence from the randomised badger culling trial. Some 15 years ago my constituency was selected as one of the triplets, so we had a proactive cull in part of the Penwith moors. I backed the cull because it was on the basis of evidence-based policy making. I followed with great interest the outcome of that research and its conclusions, which found that reactive culling had no part to play in the management of bovine TB in the livestock industry, and that proactive culling could have a meaningful impact only if carried out in a thorough manner that achieved a high level of cull consistently over a long period, which meant that it had to achieve a 70% cull rate within the hot spot areas and across a wide enough area. If the Government chose to adopt this policy, it was important that they did so in such a robust manner that it would have a real and demonstrable impact. My concern about their approach is that they wanted to do it in a manner that would not be at great expense to the public purse and therefore at the cost of the farmer, although of course the state had to step in to provide the support with policing costs, at great expense in the case of both the pilot culls. The outcome of this work ran the high risk of making the situation significantly worse.
	That is why, as a result of looking at the Government’s proposal, I proposed in my constituency the introduction of a community-led badger vaccination programme across a wide area—200 sq km. We are going to roll this out significantly later this year on the Penwith peninsula, working closely with the Zoological Society of London,
	which has now decided to take on a management role in it. Professor Rosie Woodroffe, who has been mentioned several times already, will be taking the lead on the project having originally been involved in the independent scientific group overseeing the randomised badger culling trials.

Susan Elan Jones: Whatever our views on this subject, one need only remember what the Secretary of State himself said in this Chamber in October 2012:
	“It would have been quite wrong to go ahead when it was not confident of reaching the 70% target and could have made the position worse.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 847.]
	Those are the Secretary of State’s own words. I wonder whether we are now getting from certain Government Members mere bluster to defend an absolutely abhorrent policy that is not helping the farming industry and certainly not doing anything for animal welfare either.

Andrew George: I think those who called for this debate were anticipating, or hoping, that the IEP report would be out by now, as it should have been. That would at least have ensured that the information was already in the public domain and had not been disputed by the many people who will have seen it. I think we can make a number of reasonable assumptions about the figures in the report regarding the lack of effectiveness of the two pilot culls. We have a significant amount of evidence to go on—and it will be found to be sound—that those projects failed to achieve even a 50% cull of badgers, even in the Somerset area where it is considered to have gone slightly better than in Gloucestershire. In these unfortunate circumstances, we have to move forward on the basis of the information that is currently in the public domain.
	I wish to conclude my remarks with a couple of straightforward points. First, a number of people have alighted on a report from DEFRA this week that has highlighted the fairly significant fall in TB reactors in the herd across the country—down from 37,734 in the period until December 2012 to 32,620 last year. That has happened before the impact of the pilot culls or anything else can be taken into account, which might mean that a lot of the other measures that this Government and the previous Government have engaged in are beginning to show some effects. That cannot be ignored.
	Secondly, I want to refer to the collective research that was brought together by Professor James Wood at Cambridge about a year ago. I do not have the document with me, but it showed that even in the herds that had been given the all-clear after a reactor, up to 25% continued to have latent TB within them. In this debate we are concentrating significantly on vaccinating rather than killing the badger population, but we should be concentrating a great deal more on biosecurity measures and ways in which we can bear down on the latent disease that still remains in the United Kingdom livestock industry. Even though it has been given the all-clear—

Roger Williams: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew George: I will, but I am probably testing the patience of others.

Roger Williams: I respect my hon. Friend’s views on these matters, but does he agree that however poor the tuberculin skin test is, it has been effective in reducing TB in previous times?

Dawn Primarolo: Mr George, it is not my patience you will be testing; it that of your colleagues who are patiently waiting to speak. For the third time, I remind Members that they must speak for eight to nine minutes, including interventions. Mr George, you have been speaking for 11 minutes.

Andrew George: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I will bring my remarks to a close by reminding people that I believe that vaccination is the way forward. It is the cheaper alternative for the Government, it is likely to be more effective, and it never runs the risk of making the situation worse.

Jamie Reed: While I have the Floor, I am sure that colleagues across the House would like to congratulate pupils from West Lakes academy in my constituency on sending a balloon into space this morning—quite an achievement. It is called Project Space Eye if anyone would like to look it up.
	As the Member of Parliament for England’s most remotely accessible constituency from Westminster, I am proud to represent many dozens of farmers. As I have said previously when debating this issue, I married into a dairy farming family and, as such, I have some understanding of the wide impact that bovine tuberculosis can have. We have not seen much of this so far, but I hope that when the House discusses these issues we can prevent ourselves from descending into some of the crude, crass misunderstandings, clichés and characterisations about urban England and rural England that do nobody any good whatsoever.
	Communities throughout my constituency were devastated by the outbreaks of foot and mouth over the past decade and, as a result, we are all acutely aware of the impact that losing a significant number of livestock can have, not only on the economic viability of farms, but also with regard to emotional distress caused by enforced slaughter. Bovine TB is extremely serious, and effective measures should be taken to minimise the spread of the disease. However, as more and more results of the badger cull are brought to light, the less and less effective it is shown to be. The badger cull has been a failure by whichever yardstick we choose to measure it, whether by its efficacy in reducing bovine TB, by the cost to the taxpayer, or by the humaneness of the implementation.
	Before the pilot culls took place, the number of cattle slaughtered from January to November 2013 was 30,220. That means that more than 4,600 fewer cattle were slaughtered because of bovine TB compared with the same period in 2012. The widely disputed effectiveness of the cull notwithstanding, other measures such as restrictions on cattle movement, tighter biosecurity and rigorous testing regimes have clearly had a great impact on reducing the need for compulsory slaughter. The pilot schemes were conducted on the basis that over six weeks, 70% of badgers would be culled. The original two pilot schemes failed in this regard. A freedom of
	information request in January revealed that in west Somerset just 360 badgers were killed by controlled shooting out of a population of more than 1,450, and in west Gloucestershire, 543 of about 2,350 badgers were killed. These numbers fall significantly below the 70% threshold. This has led to extensions of the culls, flying in the face of all sound scientific advice.
	Professor Rosie Woodroffe, who was involved in the original randomised badger culling trials between 1998 and 2005, has said:
	“It is not unreasonable to expect that as you prolong the cull and you prolong increased badger movement, you increase the detrimental effects.”
	Those detrimental effects were incredibly serious and the result was that TB infections in badgers increased as movement increased, and the increase was exacerbated in areas where culling was prolonged. The badger cull was designed specifically to lower instances of bovine TB, but I am afraid that it is only this Government who could press ahead with a cull that is infecting more badgers.
	Not only is this cull ineffective; it is cruel. The independent expert panel set up by the Government to assess the culls has confirmed that those carried out in Somerset and Gloucestershire were ineffective and failed on humanness. To be judged humane, no more than 5% of badgers would take longer than five minutes to die, but instead of meeting that one in 20 target, as many as one in five took longer than five minutes to die. With all that in mind, it is clear that controlled shooting badger culls are simply ineffective and it is appalling that the Government seek to carry on regardless.
	The Government said the cull was needed to prevent bovine TB, which fell dramatically before the cull had even started. They said the cull would reduce TB infection rates, but more badgers are being infected owing to the prolonging of an ineffective cull. They said the cull would be humane, but significant numbers of badgers are being put through slow and painful deaths.
	The contents of my postbag are a clear demonstration of how strongly my constituents feel about this badly implemented cull. The sheer amount of correspondence I have received so far on this issue has surpassed that received on many other issues, with the exception of the national health service, and not one constituent has expressed support for the cull. I am afraid it is time for the Government to go back to the drawing board and reflect the will of Members on both sides of the House.

Simon Hart: It will be with a heavy heart that I will not vote on this motion, if there is a Division. I really want to support the livestock industry and to demonstrate my commitment to eradicating this disease, but I am not prepared to vote on the basis of a partially leaked document—it was not even fully leaked—reported on the BBC news a couple of weeks ago.
	I agree with and share the view of the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) that we should not seek to highlight an urban-rural divide, but it is disappointing that he referred to a number of alleged statistics from a report that none of us has had the benefit of seeing. How we can make a reasoned judgement on that, I do not know.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Minister has it.

Simon Hart: I have a huge amount of respect for the shadow Minister, as he knows. It is all very well for him to point at the Minister and say that he has it, but we cannot just look through a lengthy report in one morning or during a debate and reach a solid conclusion.

Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hart: Not at the moment, but I will in a short while.
	This is a matter of great sensitivity. Although I have a long and well-known track record on this particular issue, I fully accept that not everybody shares my view and that there are some passionate contrary views. I respect them as much as I possibly can and I will—as I always have—study the alternative view.
	We are talking not about a percentage reduction in bovine TB, but about how we best deal with eradication. I want to touch on two subjects: humaneness and the comparisons with the policy in Wales, which is being used as a nice, easy solution whereby people say, “Why don’t we just do what the Welsh are doing, because it seems to be working there?”
	On humaneness, we have to take a view on whether culling is necessary. I accept entirely that not everybody takes that view, but if we accept that culling will play not the sole part, but a part in eradicating bovine TB, we have to look at the comparative measures available and the comparative suffering associated with each of them. There is no method of control or culling—none—that is without its welfare consequences. If anybody can highlight one, I will take an intervention. Even cage trapping comes with a welfare consequence—about which there is very little research—because animals may be trapped in those devices for a significant time before anybody deals with them. We have to make comparisons and reach a view. We have not done so and we are avoiding that particular aspect of the argument.
	Only when we have looked at the comparative measures will we be able to address the whole subject in context. It is important to consider the suffering of cattle and badgers with TB, bearing in mind that a lot of cubs get infected while in the sett and are already carrying the disease by the time they emerge from it. Any vaccination after that is pointless, because they have already contracted the disease. We have to look at this practically. We also need to consider the suffering of farmers and the impact on their livelihood, which has been mentioned by pretty much every speaker. We also need to consider the suffering—I use that word carefully—of taxpayers who are, year in, year out, forking out substantial sums of money while we continue to dither over this subject.
	On the comparison with Wales, I want to read out two quotes. The first is from the veterinary advice to the Welsh Government in 2011:
	“A proactive, non-selective badger cull is expected to reduce the level of confirmed herd breakdowns within the culling area for year 1.”
	The second is from the veterinary advice to the Welsh Government in 2012:
	“In so far as the results of RBCT can be extrapolated to the IAA”—
	the intensive action area—
	“it is possible to conclude that the outcome of an effectively managed cull of badgers (in the IAA) should be an overall reduction in the number of breakdowns.”
	It is important to bear in mind that the only thing that has changed in Wales is the colour of the Government—the veterinary advice has not changed. It is essential that the House and others realise that the idea that some magic cure is being applied to the badger population in Wales is a myth. Anybody who suggests—as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is not in his place, did—that there is a substantial decline in the number of herd breakdowns in Wales as a result of vaccination needs to take a wee bit of care, because in fact the statistics demonstrate that the reduction is exactly the same across the whole of Wales: there is no material difference between the reduction outside the vaccination area and that inside the vaccination area. The advice from the Welsh Government Minister, whom I spoke to personally, is that it would be dangerous to reach conclusions about the impact of vaccination based on the results so far. I just want to put that on the record.
	As the Minister himself said:
	“I am delighted that overall the figures have come down, however we cannot be certain that this is a long term trend and there may still be more fluctuation in the figures.”
	Those who think that the answer lies in Wales should look again. We are a long way off being able to bring to the House news of a silver bullet having been invented and deployed in our part of the country.
	It is important to allow other speakers to have their say. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that the objective is eradication, not reduction. All the experts to whom I have spoken, including those in Cardiff representing Government and agricultural interests, recognise that a floor will be reached as a result of all the other measures that will be put in place, such as the measures on cattle movements and more rigorous annual testing. If we are to break through that floor and reach eradication rather than reduction, culling will be back on the agenda. Nobody of any political colour or persuasion when it comes to culling has not confirmed the fact that, if we are going to deal with the matter once and for all, we are going to have to address the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population.
	If one encouraging thing has come from today’s debate—I share the view of those Members who say that it is somewhat premature—it is the fact that at last one or two people are talking about a collaborative approach between parties, rather than simply using the issue as a means of political point scoring. If we can take an intelligent view and look at the best practice of the policy in Cardiff as well as some of the measures in England, I think we will make some progress. However, the idea that we can simply dismiss one important part of the strategy of reducing TB simply because we find it distasteful does not do badgers, cattle, farmers or taxpayers any favours.

Paul Flynn: I think we should judge the contribution of the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) by recalling his previous employment. He was employed by the
	Countryside Alliance and has long been an advocate of the tormenting of small mammals for fun—for sport. He was known in Wales for many years before he entered the House as a main advocate of killing small animals for fun. We should bear that in mind and consider the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) about our historic relationship with animals, particularly badgers. I hope to be able to quote part of John Clare’s poem.
	The figures in Wales, which the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire did not cite, are impressive. There were reductions in the incidence of bovine TB as measured both by the number of cattle slaughtered, which fell by 33%, and the number of herds affected, which fell by 23%, but does he understand that enormous decrease was without any culling and without shooting badgers?
	A wholly dishonest picture has been presented about Ireland. The Secretary of State compared reductions, but he compared last year with 1998. That was a strange year to pick, but the reason for it was the sudden very big rise in the number of incidents of bovine TB. It had been about half that level a year earlier, and it was reduced in following years. The significant point about Ireland, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), is clear when we look at what has happened to the graph for Northern Ireland. The figures for reductions and increases in levels of bovine TB in the north and the south are virtually identical. There was a wholesale cull in the south—lots of animals were killed—but it made no difference in comparison with the figures for the north.
	The report before us makes a very thin case. The Government and some Government Members say that we need another piece of paper or another report. We had 10 years of the Krebs study—it went on and on, with many millions of pounds spent and 10,000 animals slaughtered—which concluded that there was no advantage in culling in the United Kingdom. He said that as a result of the evidence. The Government praise themselves on believing in evidence-based policy, but when they do not have the evidence, they invent it, as they have today.
	There is no evidence for a cull. When it was announced by the previous Secretary of State in 2011, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), I made the point that it was a bad science policy, and that there would be a big badger killing spree because of the indifference shown by people in the countryside to some animal suffering. An hon. Member made a plea for our treating cattle the same, but we should not give a picture of cattle having a blissful life—born in fields, running around in lovely surroundings, growing old, turning grey and geriatric, and going off to some nice residential home for ancient cows somewhere. Farming is brutal and cruel, and cattle have a brief life.
	We must say to the overwhelming majority of people in this country who oppose the cull that there is a sensible solution, which is vaccination. It will not work perfectly, and we will have to look at it again and see how it works in other areas for a number of years. Let us not delude ourselves that those who support culling have anything except a wish to please the farmers whom they represent. That is fine, but DEFRA has become known by the name Do Everything Farmers’ Representatives Ask, and I am afraid that there is a lot in that.
	That is the reason why we have ended up paying £3 billion—someone has said, “Let’s leave the common market. Let’s leave the EU”—of welfare into farmers’ pockets. If there is any dependency culture in this country, it is in farming. When there are problems in other industries, such as steel or heavy industries, they are not supported with unlimited subsidies. However, when there is a problem in the farming industry, it is given compensation for its losses. As someone has said about the floods, when the effluent hit the affluent there was a great reaction, and I am sure that the compensation will be a great deal more generous in the fields of Somerset than in the working-class areas and terraced streets that have been flooded for years. That is what we are up against today.
	I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will now finish. I believe that Opposition Members have compassion against cruelty, and we have practical alternatives to the Government’s instant solution, which does not work. John Clare’s great poem, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, described what was acceptable in Britain at that time, with a badger dragged out of its area, paraded through the town, and beaten and kicked to death. That was regarded as a great sport, and some people in the Chamber still regard animals as suitable targets for sport or entertainment, but that is not what the majority of people want. If there is action to get rid of this disease, it must be based on science as well as what is compassionate and acceptable to the nation, which culling is not.

David Amess: I do not want to provoke my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), but as a member of the Backbench Business Committee, I must tell him that I am delighted that we chose this subject for debate. I have enjoyed the debate, particularly its passion. It is such a shame that the passion demonstrated on animal welfare today has not been demonstrated on all such issues during the years that I have been in Parliament. If it had been, we would have had a much better outcome for God’s creatures than we now have. If I had been told when I spoke from the Back Benches on Third Reading of the Protection of Badgers Bill, which was piloted through by the noble Lord Waldegrave in 1992, that I would now be here to support the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) about badger culling, I simply would not have believed it.
	I do not want to antagonise any hon. Friends who represent farming communities—I am well aware of the pressures I face from my hon. Friends—but I am only too well aware that badgers are not warm cuddly creatures and that they can be dangerous when cornered. Some people claim that there are too many badgers and foxes, but that is a completely different matter and is not an argument for today’s debate. I represent the urban area of Southend West. When I made that speech about protecting badgers many years ago, I had no idea how difficult it was to move a sett from an urban area to somewhere else.

Daniel Kawczynski: rose—

David Amess: Madam Deputy Speaker has given the impression that she does not welcome interventions, so I will continue. [Interruption.] I give way.

Daniel Kawczynski: My hon. Friend mentioned that he represents an urban area. Will he agree to come to Shropshire to meet our dairy farmers, because he will see that we have slaughtered more cows this year than last year—up to 2,125—and that the misery for our farmers is absolutely palpable?

David Amess: I am trying to keep within my eight or nine minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is like when I expressed my views on the city of culture and had offers to visit constituencies all over the country. If I can, I may at some time visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. When I represented Basildon, which had 32 farms, I gained some understanding of the pressures that farmers are under.
	All hon. Members probably have the same briefings—depending on which side of the debate we are on—and many of the arguments have already been made. There have been two culls, and we now face a decision about the way forward. I will not get into the argument about the expert panel’s report, but it has apparently found that pilot culls have failed in the two tests set by the Government, namely effectiveness and humaneness. Many hon. Members have made points about that, so I will not repeat them.
	Different parts of the world have been mentioned, so I will say that badgers are a unique species. When comparisons are made with possum culls in New Zealand, or with culls in north America, they do not take into account the unique culture of the species. It is like comparing a dog with a whale. I just do not think that those comparisons are real.
	The pilot culls, as well as seemingly being ineffective, were very costly. The costs of conducting and monitoring the target culls soared, especially when the policing costs are taken into account. That was big expense. The preliminary calculations put the cost of the pilot cull at more than £4,000 per badger killed. That is absolutely crazy. It has been estimated that £10 million has been spent on the cull so far. We live in challenging economic times and that is a lot of money.
	The evidence suggests that the adoption of free-shooting as a means of culling badgers did not meet the necessary guidelines on humaneness. DEFRA set the standard of 95% of badgers dying within five minutes. However, as we have heard, the independent experts found that up to 18% of the badgers exceeded that limit. According to Natural England, badgers were often shot in the wrong area of the body, necessitating a second shot to kill them. The monitoring of the culls has been deemed “woefully inadequate”. On the 41 visits made by Natural England’s monitors, they witnessed only nine badgers being killed by controlled shooting.
	It would be wrong to highlight the concerns without putting forward a solution, which is what all hon. Members want. I think that badger vaccination should be treated seriously. Using an already licensed injectable vaccine represents a more cost-effective, compassionate and less divisive way of managing infection in badger populations. The House is saying that it would be good if we could agree on this matter. That solution could be implemented by using the data that have been provided
	by Natural England, which has recorded accurate information on the location of badger setts. I argue that badger setts could be successfully inoculated by using that information.
	The speed of vaccination is an important consideration. It would be disingenuous to suggest that vaccination is a quick process. Admittedly, the process would be gradual. However, vaccinating badgers is a long-term and sustainable way of reducing the prevalence of bovine TB. That is what the House is coming together to say. It wants to see the prevalence of bovine TB reduced.
	Obviously, inoculation will not eradicate badgers that carry the disease. It will just prevent the disease from spreading to other badgers. Therefore, those who are in favour of the badger cull may well argue that, on the face of it, the cull brings a quicker resolution to the problem. However, the evidence suggests that if we want a long-term, sustainable resolution to the problem, culling is not the answer. There is no doubt that badgers contribute to the problem of TB in cattle. My hon. Friends who have represented the concerns of their constituents have been right to do so. However, the only way to manage the problem is to vaccinate badgers. I will not comment on matters in Wales.
	I want to make one or two remarks to the Minister. I commend the Government’s investment of £250,000 a year to support and encourage badger vaccination using the existing injectable BCG vaccine. I also commend the Department for continuing to invest in further research into cattle vaccination and for pressing our European partners to reform EU legislation, which will be a tough task.
	Finally, it is important to note that the fact that they oppose the method that was adopted in the recent culls does not mean that those who champion vaccination as an alternative are not on the side of farmers or that they do not empathise with the emotional and financial implications of losing cattle to TB. The evidence is that we can make a serious attempt to reduce the levels of TB in farmers’ livestock, while upholding the welfare of these unique animals. I urge the Minister to seriously review the evidence from the IEP and to consider a more effective, compassionate and less costly alternative that serves the interests of farmers, as well as meeting ethical standards. Today, hon. Members have clearly demonstrated their general concern about animal welfare.

Chris Williamson: I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee on allowing it to proceed.
	It is important that we acknowledge that the badger cull has been a catastrophic failure. It has failed farmers, it has failed taxpayers and it has failed the wildlife in our countryside. It failed to reach the 70% target that it needed to reach to be effective. As Members have said, the experts say that for a randomised badger cull to be successful, it should take about two weeks. The Government set a timescale of six weeks, but they did not even manage it in that period and had to extend it. It certainly failed on that score.
	The cull failed DEFRA’s own perverse humaneness test. The test says that it is humane if it takes an animal only five minutes to die. I do not think that that is humane, but the Government failed that test as well. As other Members have pointed out, according to leaked reports, one in five badgers took considerably longer than five minutes to die. Of the 1,861 badgers that were killed in the cull, 335 took considerably longer than five minutes to die. The Government therefore failed the humaneness test.
	The Government failed to stop the spread of the disease because of perturbation. All the expert evidence says that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) said in her intervention, the Secretary of State himself acknowledged that the 70% target must be met, otherwise the cull would be a failure because of the problem of perturbation. The Government did not manage that, so on that basis, they have made the situation worse and spread TB even wider.
	The Government have failed the value-for-money test as well. The Conservative think-tank, the Bow Group, has said that it cost £4,121 to kill each badger.
	The Government have failed to acknowledge that vaccination works. They have failed to acknowledge what has happened in Wales. They have failed to accept that in Northern Ireland, where there has been no badger cull, the level of bovine TB has been reduced. We know that it is cattle movements and biosecurity measures, alongside vaccination, that will make the biggest contribution.
	The Government have also failed to meet their commitments. Government Members have talked today about seeking cross-party consensus. The Government have failed to seek that consensus. The Opposition have offered an open hand to find a consensus. Hopefully, after today, we will find one, but the Government have so far failed to deliver on that.
	The Government have certainly failed to listen to the public. Some 304,202 people signed the e-petition against the badger cull. The Government have failed to listen to scientific opinion, as I have pointed out. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who is not in his place, spoke about the importance of proceeding on the basis of scientific evidence and said that we needed to wait for the report to be available. The overwhelming scientific consensus before the cull was that it would not work, but the Government felt that it was satisfactory to ignore scientific opinion. When it suits them they ignore scientific opinion, and when it does not they call for more scientific evidence to be made available.
	Ministers cannot say that they were not made aware that the badger cull would be a disaster: hon. Members lined up to point out the folly of proceeding with it; the scientific world told them not to cull and that there was no scientific basis for proceeding with it; and the public were overwhelmingly opposed to it. The Government’s own former scientific adviser said it was a fiasco, and many other choice words have been used by scientists to describe it.
	It is important that from today we move forward with some sort of unity and consensus. I am delighted that some Members who previously voted for the cull have now changed their minds in the light of the catastrophe that has befallen us in the randomised badger culling areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and
	Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) talked about the importance of reaching a consensus, which is what the overwhelming majority of the British public want. We know that the current situation is putting the police in an impossible position. I have heard numerous reports—even while I have been sitting here listening to the debate, people have been e-mailing me—of those monitoring badger culls being harassed and even having shots fired at them. We cannot allow that to happen. We have to find an alternative way forward.

Andrew Turner: Would the hon. Gentleman mind looking at whether there is a difference in the policing costs for Gloucestershire and Somerset?

Chris Williamson: Policing costs are a significant contributory factor to the overall cost of the badger cull, but we live in a democracy and people have a right to monitor the badger cull and protest against it. We do not live in a dictatorship and those costs have to be factored in.

John McDonnell: Is it not important to acknowledge the distress the cull has caused to the wider community overall?

Chris Williamson: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That distress is not confined to people living in towns and cities; it is felt by rural communities and by many farmers. Dairy farmers have approached me to say that they are extremely distressed by the badger cull and do not feel that there is any justification for it. I see the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) shaking his head, but I can assure him that that is a fact. They are fearful that this folly will make matters worse for them. They want to proceed on a scientific basis and see this disease eradicated. They do not want to see badgers suffering and they certainly do not want to see the situation made worse as a consequence of the folly we have seen so far.
	I hope that there can be a rapprochement between those on the Government Front Bench and Opposition Members, and that we can find consensus. To achieve that, the Government must abandon this cull.

Roger Williams: For the avoidance of doubt, I declare an interest. I am responsible for some cattle in Wales and although this debate refers to England it is appropriate that I declare that interest.
	In a few months I will no longer have an interest to declare because we have decided not to keep cattle any more, partly as a result of the problems we face with TB in cattle. More grassland will be therefore ploughed up and the countryside will be less attractive. With the loss of biodiversity, the countryside will be able to support fewer species. That is a shame, and is just one effect of this country not being able to get a grip and reduce, then eliminate, this disease.
	I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing this debate and the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing it. It is vital that, in our shared determination to beat this terrible disease, we constantly scrutinise the work of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the
	development of policy. I am sure the House shares my determination to bring down the incidence of TB in our national beef and dairy herds. It is a great burden on our cattle farmers, and an avoidable expense to the Government and the taxpayer. It is also a possible risk to human health, but I do no think I will have time to go into that this afternoon.
	The tragedy is that bovine TB was virtually eliminated in the United Kingdom during the 1950s and 1960s, although there were persistent outbreaks in the south-west. That success was due to the tuberculin skin test. When the disease began to increase and spread from the south-west, it was reasonably believed that it could again be controlled by means of the skin test, perhaps used more frequently. Unfortunately, that was not the case. There is now a wildlife reservoir that did not exist in the 1950s and 1960s. The scenario is different, and therefore different policies are needed to prevent the ever-increasing spread of the disease.
	Although the epidemiology of TB, whether in cattle or in human beings, is not readily understandable—for instance, infected cattle kept in sheds throughout the winter have not passed on the infection to other cattle with which they have been in close contact—it is sometimes useful to draw parallels between different species. Bronllys hospital, in my constituency, is now a community hospital that is much valued by the people whom it serves, but originally it was the TB sanatorium for the people of south Wales. It was built in my constituency because we have a sunny and healthy climate. The treatment in the hospital of TB before antibiotics consisted of radical surgery, fresh air, sunshine and good food. The success of the eradication, or near-eradication, of TB in humans has been due to the use of antibiotics, the use of a vaccine, the pasteurisation of milk—which often carried the organism—improvements in housing and diet, and, nowadays, health checks for people entering the country,

Jim Cunningham: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is very interesting. Is he going to say anything about the effects of the vaccine when it was used in Wales? I referred to Scotland earlier, but I meant to say Wales.

Roger Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction. I shall come to the issue he has raised in a moment.
	We would not have eradicated TB in human beings if we had relied on the vaccine alone, and indeed we will not eradicate it in cattle if we rely on the vaccine alone. A range of tools must be used if we are to be successful. There is the tuberculin skin test, there is biosecurity, there is the restriction of cattle movements, and now there is vaccination. There is also badger culling in specific, focused areas where the incidence of the disease is high. I do not underestimate the contribution that a badger vaccine could make to the control of TB in cattle, but it cannot be relied on to achieve it on its own.
	The problem is that we have no scientific evidence that the Bacille de Calmette et Guérin, or BCG—which was developed in the 1920s, and has not been developed further—can prevent TB in cattle. We know that it is 70% effective in providing immunity in badgers, although of course it is not effective if the badgers are already infected, but no scientific evidence has been produced to demonstrate that it reduces infection in cattle in the field.
	The pilot culls are planned to continue for four years. I believe that they should continue, and that lessons should be learnt from the report that we expect to be published in the next few weeks. We should bear it in mind that the randomised badger cull trials failed to meet the cull targets—which is the point I was trying to make to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), for whom I have high regard—but the cull trials did result in a reduced incidence of TB in cattle herds, so there is some good news.

Lilian Greenwood: Does the hon. Gentleman not share my concern that whatever we think about the issue of culling, there has to be huge concern about the failure to meet DEFRA’s own targets on humaneness? Surely we cannot continue to extend this culling regime while this inhumaneness continues?

Roger Williams: We await the report on that. We have had only leaked evidence and I have heard less critical interpretation of the statistics.

Angela Smith: rose—

Clive Efford: rose—

Roger Williams: I will not give way as I have almost used up my time allowance.
	Continuing results from the RBCTs show continuing benefits from proactive culling many years after the conclusion of the trials. The TB situation continues to improve in New Zealand and Australia. Improvements are also evident in southern Ireland where, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge might like to note, a reactive cull has been used. Surprisingly, those areas that used reactive culling in the RBCTs now show improvements compared with the survey areas. Perhaps we should re-examine the use of reactive culling.
	More support for culling could be generated if we had a better test for TB in live badgers. The good news is that the polymerase chain reaction test is making progress and hopefully by next year we will have a conclusive test. I am sure that the culling of infected setts, as identified by PCR tests, and the protecting of healthy setts would be supported. I ask the Minister whether there is any advance on those tests.
	I am told that badgers culled in the pilots vary in weight from 6.5 kg to 22 kg. Evidence of disease in the lightest badgers probably implies that they would not survive the winter and would die in considerable distress of starvation, hyperthermia and disease. I have not heard anything today that would lead me to believe that the BCG vaccine alone will lead to an elimination of disease in the wildlife reservoir. I believe a cull is also needed as part of a wide-ranging policy, and for that reason I cannot support this motion.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate.
	Along with a number of colleagues on both sides of the House, I am not an expert on this subject, but I was Minister of State at DEFRA between 2009 and 2010.
	Some might say that that disqualifies me as an expert, but, as everybody in the House knows, having no skill, qualifications or even talent has never been an obstacle to being a Minister—I am sure we all have our own favourites. However, I did have the experience of being at DEFRA the last time the Labour Government looked at another cull—we did cull between 1997 and 2010—and, as many colleagues on both sides of the House have said, the Krebs report demonstrated that the science was brought into question.
	When I was appointed as Minister the Daily Mail attacked me. It said, “He’s a veggie and he’s a townie; what does he know about farming?”, which was a very fair observation, but I thought just a little bit too critical, because, as I have said, lack of qualifications has never been an obstacle before. The National Farmers Union was very generous, however. It said, “We don’t care where he comes from or what he eats; we will judge him on what he does for farming”, and I think I established a good relationship with the NFU. In its defence, in response to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) about subsidies, if there were not subsidies for agriculture across Europe there would be a lot more people visiting food banks. Those subsidies are not going to line farmers’ pockets exclusively, which I think is the interpretation of what was said that people outside the Chamber might have drawn.
	The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who is not in his place at present, was very critical of the previous Labour Government. His comments might have been fair if he had said the Labour Government were inconsistent, but that inconsistency arose because we tried to do everything we could: we tried culling; we tried restrictions; we tried extra biosecurity; and we tried vaccination—with all the problems the Government have in getting the vaccination validated by Europe and so forth. Progress was made, however.
	I attended the NFU conference in Birmingham only two weeks ago, as did other members of the EFRA Select Committee. The Minister was also there, representing the Government on behalf of the Secretary of State. I have the highest regard for the outgoing NFU president, Peter Kendall, and I wish his successor, Meurig Raymond, every success during his tenure as president. I heard Peter Kendall say to the Minister that the NFU was grateful for the Government’s efforts to deal with TB.
	When I was a Minister, from 2009 to 2010, we were presented with evidence to secure a cull. Some Labour colleagues have suggested today that the evidence is overwhelming, but it was not overwhelming in 2009. At that time, I took the view, on a balance of 55:45, not to recommend culling to the then Secretary of State. He looked at the evidence, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who was also in the Department at the time, was privy to some of our discussions. The Secretary of State listened to the experts, read the briefings, looked at my recommendations and talked to the NFU. He also concluded that culling was not the way forward.

Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I was named in the previous speech, but the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) would not give way to me. He said in his speech that targets had been set for the randomised badger culling
	trial. Can my hon. Friend confirm that such targets were not set for the RBCT, and that the trials were in fact designed to establish what targets would be necessary for culling to be effective?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend has set the record straight following the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I also congratulate her and others on securing the debate today, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it. Although it is taking place in advance of the report’s release, it represents another step forward in our attempt to address the problem of TB. I hope that we will get an oral statement from the Secretary of State when the report is published, and that we will be able to have a full debate on the Floor of the House in Government time.

Clive Efford: Many Members prayed in aid the fact that the report was delivered to the Secretary of State only today, and suggested that the debate was therefore premature. Does my hon. Friend agree that debates in the House can often focus the attention of those outside the House? Perhaps it is no coincidence that the report was produced on the same day that we are holding this debate. That is testimony to the work of the Backbench Business Committee in arranging the debate for today.

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. One of the successes of the Backbench Business Committee’s procedures is that they have allowed Parliament to chivvy the Government along. For DEFRA, that has happened in relation to dangerous dogs, wild animals in circuses and bovine TB. The debates keep these matters alive in the eyes of the media, of the public and of those on all sides who are concerned about the issues. It is certainly not a waste of time to hold this debate today. It might be premature to do so before we have seen the report, but I hope that the Government will hold a debate in their own time when it is published, or that we will at least have an oral statement so that we can question the Secretary of State about its findings.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has suggested that the report has been quoted selectively. He even quoted some statistics from it himself. Some of it is in the public domain. As soon as all of it is there, it will provide more evidence and give us more opportunities to make judgments. We have heard about the conflicting interpretations of what is happening in Wales, Ireland and Northern Ireland. I have not heard anything so far to persuade me that we arrived at the wrong conclusion in 2009-10.
	I understand the total frustration and anger among those in the farming community. They want to see something being done about bovine TB, and the cull at least provided evidence that something was being done. I still think that it was the wrong thing to do, however, and I hope that the Government will not extend the culls in due course. In the speeches from both sides of the House today, no one has said anything other than that they want TB to be eradicated. We want it to be done as efficiently, professionally and quickly as possible. I have the utmost respect for the Minister; we have dealt with each other on many occasions, and I know that he is committed to this subject as a result of his own farming and family interests. We want bovine TB to be beaten as quickly as possible, and I hope that this debate will bring us closer to achieving that as soon as possible.

Tracey Crouch: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). I start by paying my own tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for making it to the debate today. She is incredibly brave to do so. I am also grateful to her for doing so because she had asked me to open the debate on her behalf, had she been unable to be here. I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), not only for her contribution today, but for all her work on the issue over a number of months now. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have the debate. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is a timely one and a good opportunity for us to focus our minds on the issue.
	We need to take the debate back to basics. There has been much criticism from those who have been pro the cull that those of us who are anti the cull do not understand, because we do not have bovine TB in our constituencies. I am one of those MPs: we have very little BTB in Kent—but I want to keep it that why, which is why I am against the cull. I fear that the pilot culls will show that they spread the disease wider. I have spoken to my own farmers, who initially expressed disappointment with my position, but I said to them, “I don’t want to see this nasty disease in Kent. My fear is that if we continue to go down this route, that is exactly what will happen.”
	The subject is emotive, as we have seen today. Everyone has spoken passionately, but it is important to stick to the facts. The debate is about how the current situation stands and about how we best move forward to eradicate bovine TB from our cattle.

Daniel Kawczynski: My hon. Friend says that she has been talking to her farmers in Kent. How much time has she spent talking to farmers in places such as Shropshire, who have been badly affected by bovine TB, to listen to their perspective?

Tracey Crouch: I have not come to this conclusion lightly. My hon. Friend might recall that when I first spoke on the issue in this House I had initially been in favour of the cull, because I thought that it was the right way to support farmers. Having looked at the facts and read the science, I completely changed my mind. I do not come to this on an emotional basis; I decided about it after reading the initial scientific reports that have been published.
	I am enormously sympathetic, as is everyone in the House, to the farmers who have lost otherwise healthy cattle, because they have been compulsorily slaughtered as a consequence of bovine TB. The impact on farmers can be devastating financially and mentally. In England alone, the disease has cost the taxpayer £500 million in the past decade. I wholeheartedly support the Government’s belief that it must be tackled, for the benefit of farmers and for the animals that contract this awful disease. Today, however, we are here specifically to discuss the badger cull and whether it is the correct method of tackling the disease.
	We need to remember that badgers are not the only transmitters of bovine TB. Cattle and other animals spread the disease as much, if not more, than badgers.
	Yet, despite strong opposition in this House, two pilot badger culls have taken place, one in Somerset and one in Gloucestershire. The purpose of the pilots was simply to test controlled shooting as a method for culling. The Government decided that it must be tested against three criteria—effectiveness, humaneness and safety—in order to determine whether the method would be successful and whether it should be rolled out more widely and implemented as the policy to eradicate bovine TB.
	It took a leak from the IEP for people to find out precisely what the Government’s measure of humaneness was. It was defined as whether a badger died within five minutes of being shot. The leaked IEP findings outlined that up to 18% of culled badgers took longer than five minutes to die, failing the test for humaneness. I am interested to know whether the published report will have those same figures in it, but we will wait and see. In addition, Natural England released a set of compliance reports that show some badgers were shot in the wrong body area, or were wounded and had to be shot a second time. Other badgers have been found outside the cull area with atrocious fatal injuries, but, to be fair, we do not know if they were shot by licensed marksmen or by those taking matters into their own hands. We have to be careful about some of the details suggested by some groups, which are nevertheless rightly concerned about the cull. On the first of the Government’s own criteria, however, the cull has failed. Those with genuine concerns about animal welfare are right to be upset by the findings in the leaked report.
	I must stress that this is not only an animal welfare issue, however, and that leads me to the second of the criteria—effectiveness. Even after significant downward revision of estimated badger population numbers and the pilot culling periods being extended, the target of a minimum 70% reduction in badger numbers—needed to slow the forecasted rise of bovine TB by a mere 12% to 16%—was not achieved in either pilot area. In Somerset, the central population estimate was revised down from 2,490 to 1,450 badgers and the six-week maximum period was extended to nine weeks. In Gloucestershire, the population estimates were revised down from 3,400 to 2,350 badgers and the six-week maximum period was extended to just over 11 weeks. Initial estimates suggested that in Somerset 59% of the revised estimate of badger population were shot, a total of 940 badgers. In Gloucestershire, a lower figure of 30% was initially suggested, totalling 921 badgers. The leaked IEP report has revised the Somerset figure down further to 50%,
	By removing fewer than the target number of badgers over an extended period, the pilot culls have deviated widely from the conditions of the RBCT, which determined the minimum percentage that needed to be culled to ensure it would be effective. That does not even take into consideration the effects of perturbation. The social structure of badgers means that when disturbed in this way, they are likely to flee outside the areas they would otherwise stay within, thus increasing the number of animals at risk of infection. It is likely that the pilot culls will have seriously perturbed the remaining badger populations in the two cull zones, which in turn could lead to an increase in the prevalence of bovine TB among the remaining badgers and a subsequent increase in the risk to cattle. The lower the percentage reached, the larger the effects of that. So not only have the
	Government failed to achieve the second part of their criteria, but they have quite possibly worsened the problem through perturbation.
	Leaving aside the additional policing costs incurred, which appear to be substantial, I believe that although there are minor concerns about the safety, there is, on the whole, no issue with that criterion being met. However, despite the Secretary of State’s premature declaration to the House last year that the pilots were a success and that all three criteria have been met, it appears that that is not the case and that only one was.
	There is a viable alternative that has been proved to be effective, that is humane and costs less, with no unforeseen astronomical policing costs to be incurred: a vaccination programme combined with better biosecurity, and stricter testing and movements of cattle, as is currently being undertaken in Wales, with great results. In further support of that method, I looked back to our previous successes with tackling bovine TB. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) made the point that in the 1960s TB in cattle was brought under control using a strict and very high level of cattle testing, movement restrictions and biosecurity measures. Only when those measures were relaxed and then abandoned altogether did incidences increase again. Surely that is the appropriate way to bring cattle TB under control while we await a useable cattle vaccine.
	A licensed injectable vaccine for badgers presents practical challenges in its administration, but it has been shown to be extremely effective, reducing the risk of becoming infected with bovine TB by 76%. Additionally, and importantly, it has a herding effect, which means that when more than a third of the social group has been vaccinated, the risk to unvaccinated cubs was reduced by 79%, as a 2012 study shows. Vaccinations not only have the potential to reduce the risk of vaccinated animals and their unvaccinated cubs becoming infected, but they eliminate the problem of perturbation and animal welfare concerns.
	In conclusion, the pilots were an experiment to find an effective method for dealing with bovine TB. What is the point of doing an experiment if we are going to continue regardless of the results? The test has shown culling to be inhumane and ineffective, so I urge the Minister to reconsider the policy of culling and move forward with a more effective method, as has been done in Wales. However, if he intends to go ahead with the cull, he must prove he has the support of the House by bringing forward a motion in the name of the Government and giving Members the opportunity to vote for or against his policy, based not on emotion but on evidence, which he knows shows the culls to be the shower that many of us warned they would be.

Iain McKenzie: I do not intend to use up all the time available to me, as I have contributed to the previous two debates on these pilot culls and I fear that I would just be repeating some of the points I raised before the pilots started and while they were taking place.
	I know the Minister to be an honourable gentleman, and I have served with him on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I hope and expect that he is listening intently, and that he will take to his
	colleagues in government the consensus of the House that these culls have to stop permanently, and that we must look in another direction to solve the problem, particularly as the badger cull is now recognised as a pretty shambolic failure by the public and everyone concerned with it.
	We have heard from colleagues about the pilots’ failings as regards humaneness and effectiveness. Two thousand badgers have been killed and millions of pounds have been spent. We have heard of the division in communities and the public over the issue. I welcomed the announcement that badger culls had been stopped after it was evidenced that marksmen had failed to meet the 70% kill mark, but unbelievably the Government are still considering rolling out the policy of culling badgers in 10 new areas of England next year. The Government need to cancel these killing plans once and for all, and to focus on improving cattle welfare, controlling cattle movements, increasing biosecurity, and developing, as hon. Members have said, a badger and cattle vaccine.
	It has been rumoured that the Government are considering even cheaper methods of dealing with badgers, such as gassing them. I hope that the Minister can confirm that that is just a rumour and is not being considered. We need a science-led policy to manage cattle movements better, and a vaccine to tackle TB in cattle. Opposition Members have warned the Government for two years that the badger cull was bad for farmers, bad for taxpayers and bad for wildlife. We recognise that bovine TB is a terrible disease and, hopefully, those of us who do not come from a farming community understand the frustration of famers in those communities that feel the devastating impacts of bovine TB. However, the cull has not helped to resolve this problem. Farmers and the public have been falsely presented with the impression that without the large-scale killing of badgers, bovine tuberculosis in cattle cannot be effectively controlled. As we have heard, that is not the case, if we accept evidence from Wales: in 2013, a programme involving badger vaccination, stricter cattle testing and movement restrictions showed that we can get a very significant reduction in bovine TB incidence in cattle without the need for a cull.
	Culling just does not work. It risks spreading the disease further and costs far more than it saves. The Government claim that any badger culling policy will be proceeded with only if it can be demonstrated that it is humane. However, as I have said, it has been well and truly evidenced that the culling has not been humane. It did not even meet the target that the Government set. Unfortunately, DEFRA has hidden behind the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, claiming that the disclosure of information would risk the safety of personnel involved in the pilots and compromise its ability to protect the environment. It continues to do that in spite of the Information Commissioner’s ruling that there should be disclosure, and the fact that the pilot culls have been completed.
	If the Minister truly wishes to pursue a cross-party approach to this issue, why has he not agreed to any of Labour’s key asks, put forward in the Westminster Hall debate of 11 December last year, in which I took part? All of them were reasonable, rational, and had cross-party support, unlike the cull. We have heard from Members on both sides of the House that we need to move with urgency on getting a vaccine solution.
	Badger vaccination represents a less risky and potentially more successful method of reducing the prevalence of bovine TB among badger populations. Labour is committed to implementing a science-led strategy in the fight to reduce bovine TB; that includes the use of vaccination. DEFRA is working with the EU to change legislation so as to allow TB vaccination of cattle, and the use of a trade test to differentiate infected from vaccinated animals.
	The Government have continually said that a vaccine is not ready. Could that be the result of one of the Government’s first acts in 2010—cancelling five of the six vaccine field trials commissioned by Labour? DEFRA is cutting funding for the research and development of a badger vaccine from £3 million to just over £300,000 by next year. It has also cut funding for developing a cattle vaccine by over £1.5 million. We have had a cut in vaccine development and a farce of a cull, both of which have been bad for farmers, bad for taxpayers and bad for wildlife.

Adrian Sanders: As a Member of Parliament for a constituency in Devon, I am well aware of just how devastating bovine tuberculosis is in cattle. It is the area of the country that has been most affected by this terrible scourge over a number of years. I do not represent many farmers, but I have had farmers come to my advice surgery telling me about the devastation of their herd. I am acutely aware of the devastation that that causes to their families and to farming communities, and we are all united in wanting to do something about it.
	The IEP report, much of which is on the web for hon. Members to see, clearly states that culling is not suitable for preventing the spread of bovine TB. Instead, we should stick to the agreement, made at the beginning of the coalition, to fully consider the scientific evidence available before deciding on the best way forward.
	The IEP reported that the pilot cull has not met two of the three criteria. The culls have failed to be humane, as up to 18% of the badgers killed took longer than five minutes to die, and have failed to be effective, as less than 50% of the badgers were killed in either pilot area, far less than the target of 70% for the trial. The report shows that the recent badger culls did not work and suggests that they have had a negative effect by encouraging the spread of the disease through movement of badgers as badger populations are disrupted.
	As the randomised badger culling trial, managed by the independent scientific group between 1998 and 2006, witnessed, after killing more than 12,000 badgers there was an initial decrease in the level of disease by approximately 23% in the centre of culled areas, but an increase of 29% on neighbouring land. By continuing with a badger cull we are in danger of worsening levels of infection, and therefore we must carefully consider the viable alternatives to a cull.
	Evidence from Wales, as highlighted by other hon. Members, shows that in 2013 a programme of badger vaccination, stricter cattle testing and movement restrictions, resulted in a 24% fall in the number of herds with bovine TB, compared with England where they fell by only 3%. Those options are realistic alternatives to a badger cull to prevent the spread of bovine TB.
	Testing regimes in England need to be improved. Currently, a significant proportion of infected cattle are missed, so there is still a great threat that the disease will spread whether or not we continue to cull badgers. As DEFRA has recognised, the single intradermal comparative cervical tuberculin test can miss up to approximately 20% of infected animals that are either in the early or late stages of the disease. By using this means of testing, it is possible that infected animals can be present in a herd when movement restrictions are lifted and the officially tuberculosis-free status regained, even though herds may be infected.
	Between the late 1980s and 2005, various changes to the testing regime led to a re-establishment of the disease due to major reductions in testing intensity, relaxation in movement controls, and a move to two, three and four-yearly testing, which fails effectively to identify and isolate cases of the disease. The testing regime can have an important effect on the level of bovine TB in cattle. For instance, after moving to annual testing in 2008, Wales has nearly halved the number of cattle slaughtered per annum since 2009. Without such a regime we run the risk of jeopardising any further work to reduce bovine TB. Beyond this, a better testing regime can be supplemented by improving methods of biosecurity, which includes area-to-area cattle movement controls and annual checks, as well as preventive vaccinations.
	Attempts in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s to reduce the levels of the disease through a process of rigorous area-by-area cattle movement controls and annual testing decreased levels of bovine TB to 0.01%. Those alternatives had a dramatic effect on the number of livestock slaughtered, which decreased from 25,000 in 1950 to 2,081 in 1970, without resorting to the slaughter of wildlife. The research of the Central Science Laboratory further concluded that suggested biosecurity exclusion methods could be up to 100% effective if used by farmers to prevent the transmission of bovine TB from badgers to cattle.
	It seems peculiar that we could be paying to cull badgers, which causes an increase in the spread of bovine TB, before we have ensured that the biosecurity resources, which could only have a positive effect, are sufficient. That option is particularly appealing as DEFRA data suggest that the average cost of improving biosecurity for farmers is about £4,000. Considering the fact that the average cost of dealing with a TB herd breakdown in Great Britain is about £27,000, such measures would appear cost-effective when compared with the cost of a cull, which DEFRA estimates at £4.56 million a cull with an extra policing cost of £500,000 per area per year.
	The cull is not the financially viable option and although it has been argued that vaccination options are too expensive to be efficient, that is not true. In fact, DEFRA has estimated the cost of vaccinating badgers at £2,250 per sq km a year whereas the cost of policing the first two badger culls was roughly £4,400 per sq km. Vaccination is cheaper because there is no need to dispose of carcases, it is unlikely to require as much policing and wildlife organisations have hundreds of volunteers who can be used as a resource to help with its administration.
	Over the past 10 years, DEFRA has spent £10 million on research into badger vaccines and it appears a great waste of taxpayers’ money for the Government to drop
	that potential alternative. More than 1,200 badgers have so far been vaccinated in Gloucester and the Welsh Assembly Government continue to pursue a vaccination policy for their intensive action area in and around Pembrokeshire, the cost of which is estimated at £662 a badger. Although that cost is high, it is considerably lower than the estimates for the cost of the pilot culls on a per badger basis, so the UK Government should be considering the option seriously. The alternatives exist and are a realistic option to prevent the transmission of bovine TB.
	In conclusion, as the IEP report has shown, culling is ineffective and inhumane. It appears completely wrong to jeopardise the welfare of badgers and taxpayers’ money when cheaper options are available to prevent this terrible TB infection in cattle.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for the debate and the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for her work in securing it. Like others, I appreciate her courage in leading it this afternoon.
	Let me start by echoing the words of the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who is no longer in his place. The debate is not about people who love badgers versus people who love cattle. It is not about those who find a cull distasteful, to use the words of the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), versus those who do not. It is about how we can most effectively address the scourge of bovine TB.
	The science points us towards the fact that culling badgers in England is not an effective policy. I wish that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) were still in his place, because I would say to him that it is him, not me, who has his science wrong. I might also be tempted to point out to him that although I know I am guilty of many sins, I am not aware that I have been guilty of spreading bovine TB myself. That was among the many things he accused me of earlier this afternoon.
	Let me be serious. It is important that we address the clichés. Even though I represent an urban constituency, I have spent a lot of time with farmers. I was a member of a European Parliament special committee on foot and mouth disease and I visited many farms and sat with many farmers in their kitchens. I am under no illusion about the enormous distress they experience at the thought of the destruction of their animals. I have cried as they have cried facing the loss both of their livelihoods and of animals that they love. This is not a competition about who loves animals most; it is a debate about the evidence for what works. There is no monopoly on either side of the House on caring for animals. What there is, I think, is a determination among some of us to try to look at the evidence with a bit more rigour.
	I welcome this debate, because it is important that MPs are properly involved in any future decisions about the control of bovine TB, and that those decisions are subject to a vote in this House. As other hon. Members have indicated, the pilot badger cull can only be judged a spectacular failure, including against the Government’s own terms of reference.
	The leaked IEP report makes it clear that the pilot failed two of the Government’s tests. It failed on humaneness, as more than 5% of badgers took longer than five minutes to die, and it failed on effectiveness, as fewer than 50% of badgers have been killed in either pilot area. Yes, those are only leaks, but we know that they echo the empirical evidence of so many people who have been monitoring the culls. We know, for example, that one of those culls took more than 11 weeks and that people involved in those culls stopped free shooting quite early on because it was not effective. We know as well from the people who were following those culls that many of the animals were not shot in a clean way.
	It is not the case that, because this report has not been published, we cannot make statements about it. I wish, as others do, that the Minister had brought it forward earlier. As one of the co-sponsors of the debate, I can say that, when we went to the Backbench Business Committee, we fully expected the report to be out. The reason we wanted it out fairly swiftly was that we know that this Government have a habit of moving fast without consulting Parliament. They did that when they extended the culls in the first place—the extended period did not come back to Parliament for a decision—so it was right to ensure that the Government heard the views of the constituents whom we represent.
	The leaked IEP report makes it clear not only that the pilots failed some of the tests that the Government set, but that costs have soared, particularly when policing costs are taken into account. Preliminary estimates put the pilot costs at an eye-watering £4,000 per badger killed. Shockingly, despite that, the Government have refused to rule out the extension of culling in up to 40 additional large areas in the west and south-west of England in the coming years.
	Much has been said about the importance of evidence-based policy making. Let us remind ourselves about what some of these scientific experts have said about culling. Others have already quoted Lord John Krebs, who called the cull policy “mindless”. He was one of the architects of the landmark 10-year culling trials that ended in 2007. He said:
	“The scientific case is as clear as it can be: this cull is not the answer to TB in cattle. The government is cherry-picking bits of data to support its case.”
	Lord Robert May, a former Government chief scientist and president of the Royal Society, said:
	“It is very clear to me that the Government's policy does not make sense.”
	He added:
	“I have no sympathy with the decision. They are transmuting evidence-based policy into policy-based evidence.”
	I want to highlight some of the myths associated with the culling strategy and to suggest some alternatives. Before I do that, let me state again that I absolutely accept that bovine TB is a serious problem that needs to be tackled. However, the evidence shows that badger culling makes the problem even worse for some farmers, and risks making it worse for all of them. Today’s debate is not about whether we want to protect cattle or badgers; it is about the most effective way to protect cattle, which, as the evidence shows, is not by killing badgers. That is not because badgers do not necessarily contribute to the cattle TB problem, but because badger culling tends to increase the proportion of badgers
	infected and to spread the disease to new areas. That is because of the perturbation effect, as fleeing badgers spread the disease further afield while the vacuum caused by culling attracts new badgers into newly vacated territory.

Charles Hendry: The hon. Lady will be aware that there is a high-risk area in Sussex, which spreads broadly from her constituency to mine. It is a fairly ring-fenced area. We understand the nature of the problem there, and it is causing real difficulties. Does she recognise that that is an ideal example of where vaccination could be made to work? As the disease is geographically confined, we could see the effects of perturbation and whether, with vaccination, there were different issues that could be managed more effectively.

Caroline Lucas: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and completely agree. I know that in previous debates, he has raised, as I have, the work of the Sussex badger vaccination project, a volunteer-run service that offers landowners and farmers in east Sussex the chance to have badgers vaccinated at very low cost, thereby providing a humane and less controversial method of tackling the disease. I hope that as many farmers as possible in the area will take up that offer.
	I want to talk about some of the myths about culling. One that even DEFRA is promoting—we have heard it several times already today from Government Members—is that results from places such as New Zealand support the strategy of badger culling in the UK. Let us be clear that there are no badgers in New Zealand. The wildlife host there is the brushtail possum, an invasive species introduced from Australia. Possum ecology is completely different from badger ecology. Although culling reduces TB in possums, rather than increasing it, that result cannot simply be transposed to a different species with a different ecology in a different country. Professor Charles Godfray of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences puts it clearly:
	“Differences in the regulatory and social structure of farming, the countryside, and the ecology of the different reservoirs all mean that lessons from other countries have to be taken with great caution.”
	The bottom line is that bovine TB is too important for us to be cherry-picking the evidence. As we reflect on the pilot culls, it is essential that we put science at the heart of future policy.
	Similarly, evidence from the Republic of Ireland has been cited to support claims that culling badgers will help to control TB in England. As with New Zealand, the evidence shows that TB reductions cannot be attributed solely to culling. Crucially, Ireland has much lower badger densities than England, so the badgers respond differently to culling. In England, culling has consistently increased the proportion of badgers with TB. The evidence most applicable to the TB problem in England is information collected in England.
	We have heard that during the pilot culls, when the Government’s policy on badger control was in place, the conditions deviated massively from the conditions of the randomised badger culling trial, so any reliance on the results of the RBCT in predicting the likely outcome of culling is completely invalid. Let us not forget that even in the best case scenario the RBCT only reduced the incidence of bovine TB by between
	12% and 16%. In other words, even if we were to take Herculean measures and do absolutely everything in the right amount of time and as cleanly as possible, we would still not be tackling at least 84% of TB in cattle. That is what makes me feel that it is even more important to look at alternative strategies, and chief among them, as many other Members have said, is badger vaccination.
	Badger vaccination makes sense for a number of reasons, but I want to mention just two. The first reason is that it works. It reduces the probability of infection by between 70% and 75%. Even allowing for the fact that not all badgers will be reached and vaccination needs to be repeated year on year to include new cubs, it is still more effective and more cost-effective than shooting, not least because vaccination allows the badgers’ population structure to remain in place, granting considerable benefits for disease limitation.
	Vaccination does not remove infected badgers, but it makes it more difficult for those animals to pass infection to other badgers. Over time, the infected animals die off, and the proportion of infected badgers is expected to decline. That contrasts with culling, which increases the proportion of infected badgers and spreads infection in space.
	The second reason is on grounds of cost. Vaccinating badgers is cheaper than culling them, for at least three reasons: First, the poor performance of free shooting suggests that both culling and vaccination would entail cage trapping, with vaccination slightly cheaper because there is no need to dispose of carcases. Secondly, vaccination is unlikely to require policing. As other members have said, DEFRA estimates the cost of vaccinating badgers to be £2,250 per sq km per year, while policing the first two pilot culls alone cost roughly £4,400 per sq km. Thirdly, as with the example of the Sussex badger vaccination project, many wildlife organisations can draw upon hundreds of volunteers to help with badger vaccination, markedly reducing the costs.
	As I have said in all the other parliamentary debates on the subject, we also need to devote more resources and political capital to overcoming the challenges with cattle vaccination, as well as to addressing the role that modern husbandry practices can play in placing chronic stress on intensively farmed animals. Professor John Bourne, chair of the independent scientific group that oversaw the RBCT, stated in his final report that
	“implementation of cattle control measures outlined in this report are, in the absence of badger culling, likely to reverse the increasing trend in cattle disease incidence.”
	Improving biosecurity must also take priority, as well as stricter testing and movement restrictions. We can see that measures are already playing a part in bringing down the incidence of bovine TB. Others have mentioned the figures recently released by DEFRA showing that during 2013 there was a 14% reduction in the number of cattle slaughtered as TB reactors or direct contacts. We have also seen the evidence from Wales, where a combination of biosecurity, cattle movement restrictions and vaccination is being used to reduce bovine TB, and where the number of cattle herds with the disease fell by 23.6% last year.
	This is a complex topic, but my asks of the Minister are simple. First, he should look at the evidence and stop the badger culls for good. He should grant no more licences to shoot badgers, and stop wasting time,
	money and energy on an approach that is making matters worse. As others have said, bovine TB is too important for us to cherry-pick the evidence. As we reflect on the culls, let us make sure that we put science at the centre of future policy. If the Government were minded to continue with any kind of culling programme, they absolutely must come back to this House first and subject that decision to a vote, because I am convinced that we would win it.

Daniel Kawczynski: Of course, one comes across a lot of emotional issues with constituents, but in the nine years for which I have been the Member of Parliament for Shrewsbury, one of the most emotional experiences I have faced was meeting a dairy farmer in the village of Snailbeach in the southernmost part of my constituency. I went to see him and spent the day on his farm, where I saw at first hand the terrible suffering that he had been through with all his cattle being taken away for slaughter. We sat at his kitchen table afterwards, and over tea he started to cry, and I joined in. It was such an emotional experience seeing a grown man cry and seeing the constant emotional, psychological impact that this was having on him—as on many children. Let us not forget that on many of our Shropshire farms there is not just the farmer but his family, and when the children see these cows being taken away for slaughter, it has a terrible emotional impact on them.
	That is why in the previous Parliament I set up the all-party group for dairy farmers. Over 170 Members of Parliament from all political parties joined that campaigning group, and we had an excellent secretariat in the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers. We did not have many resources at our disposal, but we met many organisations from around the country that came to speak to us at the House of Commons—not just from this country but from France and Ireland, as well as other parts of the United Kingdom. After taking evidence for a year, we came to two conclusions: first, that there needed to be a limited cull of badgers; and secondly, that there ought to be a grocery adjudicator to support farmers and deal with some of the more pernicious ways in which the supermarkets were treating them. I am very pleased that there has been movement on those two important suggestions, because when I brought them to the attention of the then Secretary of State for DEFRA, David Miliband, he was completely derisory about both of them.
	In Shropshire last year, 2,125 cows were killed as a result of bovine tuberculosis. Although the figures have come down in certain parts of the United Kingdom, as we have heard, that is an increase on the previous year’s figure of 1,976. The problem is continuing to increase for all our farmers. At the end of last year, 401 herds in the county were subject to Government movement restrictions. I would like to read to the Minister in the strongest possible way a statement from the vice-chairman of Shropshire NFU, Mr Richard Yates, as reported in today’s Shropshire Star:
	“A vet said to me that there’s two types of farmer in Shropshire—those that have TB and those that are going to get it, and that was like a knife in the back to me.”
	He went on to say that he goes to market a lot, where he speaks to many Shropshire farmers and is staggered by just how many of them are affected by this terrible
	disease. He has identified correctly that we are spending more than £100 million a year in compensation to farmers. That is a staggering amount of money and I do not think that anybody present would want £100 million to be spent needlessly. Clearly, there are much greater priorities for funding to be spent in the health service, education and all the other things that we want to provide for our constituents.
	That is why it is so important that we reach a consensus. Let us try to get it. I am encouraged that there has been talk about some sort of compromise or consensus, because we have been discussing this issue for many years and we do not appear to be any closer today than we have been in years gone by to finally grappling with this terrible disease.
	Mr Yates says that he wants the preservation order to be taken off badgers and for farmers and gamekeepers to be allowed to deal with the problem. He says:
	“I have a sett in nearly every field. Badgers are out of control. You never see hedgehogs any more, or ground nesting birds, because the badgers are killing them.”
	I have met the Shropshire Wildlife Trust on many occasions. It is the largest organisation in Shropshire, with more than 6,000 members, and, of course, its symbol is a badger. It has taken me on several occasions to see badgers and wildlife and to look at setts. I understand the passion on both sides of the argument, but I say to the Minister that if he and his officials believe that badger culls are necessary in order to grapple with this appalling disease, he must show the courage to continue with that policy. All I care about is stopping this ghastly disease destroying Shropshire’s very important cattle and dairy industries, on which we are so dependent and which I will do everything I can to protect.

Nicholas Dakin: I agree with the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) that we need to stop this ghastly disease. That is the theme of this debate. One of the benefits of speaking this late in a debate is that everything has already been said. I hope I will not repeat much of it.
	As an aside, one thing that has not been mentioned is the number of cows killed as a result of the devastating floods in the west country and whether or not their impact on biodiversity has been beneficial to this problem. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
	The briefing distributed by the National Farmers Union is very helpful. It reminds us:
	“213,799 cattle have been slaughtered due to Bovine Tuberculosis since 2008. The disease imposes a significant burden on taxpayers, with control and testing measures costing the taxpayer around £100m per year, which will rise if TB spread continues unchecked.”
	It is a massive problem in every way and it provokes strong emotional responses. The hon. Gentleman described the farmer whose livelihood has been destroyed and with whom one sympathises hugely. I understand why people in the farming industry feel desperate. Likewise, one empathises with those who have been e-mailing us in their hundreds of thousands to voice their concern about the unnecessary, as they see it, destruction of badgers. We as policy makers need to navigate a way through those emotional responses and arrive at the right answer to make things better. If we come up with the wrong answer and make things worse, we will have difficulties.
	There is no doubt whatsoever that TB is a huge problem and we need to tackle it. From listening to this debate and the information provided outside as well as inside this Chamber, the weight of evidence seems to show that badger culling is making things wore rather than better. We would therefore be very unwise to continue an approach that worsens the situation, rather than seeking one that will improve it.
	The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has already covered the fact that it is not terribly helpful to use possums in New Zealand and badgers in Ireland as reference points for dealing with badgers in England. The best evidence for dealing with badgers in England is the huge trial in England over many years—the randomised badger culling trial from 1998 to 2006—which has given us massive evidence about what works and what does not work.
	To be fair to the pilot culls, they set out to work to that evidence base in trying to reach the 70% target within six weeks. The shame appears to be that, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) clearly pointed out, the pilots failed to meet two out of the three tests that were set. All the evidence is that culling to less than 70% or certainly for more than six weeks causes more problems than it solves. Despite the chorus of voices expressing concern, there is no doubt that the Government set out with the best of intentions, but with those best of intentions, they have produced the worst of outcomes. We therefore need to think very carefully about what we do now.
	Badger vaccination works. The evidence demonstrates that it is an alternative that works: once infected badgers are vaccinated, the hosts are prevented from being transmitted to other badgers and the disease is not passed on. There is an evidence base on the impact of the vaccination of red foxes against rabies, indeed, of human beings against measles. Vaccination works and, on the basis of figures presented to us from the evidence, seems to be more cost-effective and better value for money.
	The problem with vaccination is that it takes a bit longer and we have to be a bit more patient. I fully understand the frustration and impatience about the need to do something about this dreadful disease, but if we made matters worse through our impatience, hurry and urgency, that would be the height of foolishness. Sadly, despite everything that has been said, it appears that continuing down this route will create more difficulties not only for badgers, but for cattle and the people whose livelihoods depend on them, as well as for the taxpayer, whose best interests we are all here to represent.

Paul Burstow: I very much welcome this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on taking the initiative in calling it, and the Backbench Business Committee on selecting it and providing time for it. Now is the right time for this debate.
	The hon. Lady is certainly not responsible for ensuring that we have all the facts from a report at the Government’s disposal. By the end of the debate, I hope that it will be clear to the Minister that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see the report, and that he should at least indicate the timetable for its publication. However, several hon. Members have shared much of the material
	from the leaked report, and we should be cognisant of what it tells us about culling’s lack of effectiveness and its inhumane nature, which is why I certainly support the motion.
	From listening to this debate, which has been a great education, it is clear that there is no silver bullet—no one single thing that we or the Government can do to bring easily within our grasp our shared goal of eradicating bovine TB. It is a complex, multi-faceted problem and, as such, it requires a comprehensive strategy. I therefore welcome the comments of the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), in which he said that there is a comprehensive strategy. Unfortunately, the strategy is all too often obscured by the need to be concerned about and to debate the inadequate evidence base. Indeed, the evidence demonstrates that culling is not the right strategy. We need to get that debate out of the way so that we can have the necessary focus on delivering all the welcome aspects of the strategy.
	The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made an excellent speech and an excellent demand of the Government. It is great that the Backbench Business Committee has provided us with time to debate this issue. However, given that it does not divide us along party lines, but is of serious concern to Members across the House, I think that the Government should test the opinion of the House on a motion if they are minded to make the case for further culling.
	We have heard some compelling evidence in this debate, not least from the leaks of the report. I cannot ignore the evidence that the Government’s own test for the humaneness of killing has been breached in so many cases. The guidelines say that it is sufficiently humane if a creature dies within five minutes, but 18% of the badgers did not do so. That raises questions about whether we are travelling in the right direction by maintaining support for the cull. Several colleagues have also mentioned the flight risk that exists with such operations, which can make matters worse, not better.
	Several hon. Members have referred to what Wales is doing. If we are to have an informed debate, we need to have all the evidence of the successes and failures in Wales, and to know what lessons can be learned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) said, we know that trapping and vaccinating is cheaper than culling, and that it has led to a 33% reduction in the number of cattle that have been slaughtered. He also said that having tighter biosecurity is a way of securing what we all want at a lower cost.
	I have a question for the Minister about the vaccination of cattle. Every 10 years, we are told that it will be another 10 years before we get a vaccine. One of the issues is that the tests are not sufficiently refined to distinguish between those that have the infection and those that have had the vaccine. Will the Minister indicate when we might see progress on the testing, so that the vaccine can be used more effectively?
	This is a serious matter to which the House keeps returning. I hope that the Government realise that Members across parties and across the House do not believe that the evidence is compelling and clear enough to support the use of culling.

Nia Griffith: Tuberculosis infection is of major concern to our farming community. The distress that is caused by having to slaughter cattle is immense. Labour Members are fully committed to making progress towards eradicating bovine TB, but we do not believe that culling is the answer.
	We know that 94% of TB infection is caused by cattle-to-cattle transmission and only 6% by badger-to-cattle transmission. It therefore makes sense to focus significant efforts on biosecurity, animal husbandry and cattle vaccination. Cattle vaccination puts the farmer firmly in control. I therefore urge the Government, first and foremost, to redouble their efforts to develop an effective vaccine that can be used and tests that can distinguish between vaccinated and sick animals, and to sort out the obstacles to effective trade. In the meantime, as hon. Members have pointed out, a great deal can be done through greater insistence on vigilance, biosecurity and pre-movement testing.
	In calling for an end to the Government’s costly and cruel culling programme, I will focus on alternative strategies. I will therefore draw hon. Members’ attention to the measures that my colleague, Alun Davies AM, who is the Minister for Natural Resources and Food in the Welsh Government, is implementing to tackle TB in cattle.
	In Wales, a whole range of measures are being used to strengthen biosecurity. It is early days to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures, but there are some encouraging signs. From December 2012 to November 2013, there was a reduction of 23% in the incidence in new herds and a 33% reduction in the number of animals slaughtered. Since 2010, pre-movement testing has applied to all herds. From 30 September this year, sole occupancy authorities will not automatically be exempted from pre-movement testing. The Welsh Government have also intensified enforcement of cross-compliance penalties for late bovine TB tests. The majority of farmers already comply with the requirements, but this will improve consistency.
	In April 2013, the Welsh Government set up a specialist study to look at the regional factors affecting the pattern of disease in Wales to ensure the very best use of resources. Last October, they launched the Cymorth TB programme, or the TB support programme. Its purpose is to give farmers extra help in dealing with a bovine TB breakdown, including help from local vets, and to help farmers to remain TB-free in future.
	The Welsh Government have also implemented a badger vaccination programme. In the intensive action area in north Pembrokeshire, 1,400 badgers were vaccinated in 2010, the first year, with another 1,350 badgers vaccinated in 2013. Participation is voluntary and there has been very good co-operation from landowners. The Welsh Government are also providing a badger vaccination grant, which will meet 50% of the costs of badger vaccination for five years. In June, Wales will host the world mycobacterium bovis conference. This will be an opportunity to share expertise and the experience of implementing measures to eradicate TB.
	One of the most depressing truths about the recent cull by this Government is that it was not based on the strongest scientific evidence available in the first place. It need never have taken place. Under the previous
	Labour Government, we commissioned the randomised badger cull trials, the largest scientific project on the effectiveness of culling, which reported in 2007. The report of the independent scientific group on cattle TB stated:
	“After careful consideration of all the RBCT and other data presented in this report, including an economic assessment, we conclude that badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in Britain.”
	As other hon. Members have graphically described, we have witnessed the spectacular failure of the cull. That failure, sadly, was predictable. In conclusion, I call on the Government to work closely with the Welsh Government to look at alternatives to the discredited cull programme for the benefit of farmers across England and Wales.

Neil Parish: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate.
	It is far too early to draw conclusions from the report. The House has not yet seen the report properly, and all we are acting on are leaks from it. I have full confidence in the Secretary of State and the other DEFRA Ministers to analyse the report properly and to come to this House with their conclusions. Where we need to cull badgers and it can be done humanely, we must carry on doing so.
	Many Members have referred to their own constituencies. It is very likely that vaccinating badgers in a rural constituency with very little TB in cattle, and hardly any TB in the badger population, will be effective—badgers must be vaccinated annually, but that will do a very good job. However, in a constituency such as mine, where some 25% of herds are restricted and are testing positive for TB, and there is a huge amount of TB in the badger population, any amount of vaccination will not cure the infected badger.
	The British Veterinary Association has said:
	“Scientific evidence proves that badgers and cattle spread bTB to cattle and that the targeted culling of badgers does reduce the levels of infection in cattle herds. Cattle vaccination will be an essential part of the long term strategy to eradicate bTB but will not be available in the UK until at least 2023.”
	Will we really be able to wait until 2023, and continue to destroy some 35,000 cattle a year—some 5,600 a year in Devon alone? We cannot go on doing that.
	This mythical vaccine was offered to farmers throughout the 13 years of the last Labour Government. Is it any wonder that those poor farmers are pulling their hair out and are almost suicidal because they cannot cure their herds of TB? They are testing their cattle every six weeks. Anyone who tries to organise such tests time and time again, running all those cattle through cattle crushes, will find that it is a huge effort, not just physical but emotional.
	When the farmers have tested the cattle and established that they no longer have TB, and when the reactors have been taken away, what do the farmers do? In the spring and summer they turn their cattle out on to the edges of Exmoor and the Blackdown hills, where there are huge grasslands that are very good for the production of dairy and beef. When the cattle are out in those fields, it is almost impossible to prevent them from mixing with an infected badger population.
	We need cross-party support in this place for action in those areas in particular. It will not be possible to eradicate TB by means of vaccination alone; it will be necessary to remove the infected badgers. The point of carrying out pilots rather than randomised badger culling trials was to establish hard boundaries in order to ensure that there had been no perturbation that would spread the disease to surrounding areas. I hope that the report will provide evidence of that. What the randomised cull did do was reduce the amount of TB in those areas by some 28% or 29%, which shows that the controlling and culling of badgers does work.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that we need to look at the report. I would be the first to say, as many other Members have, that if we are going to cull, we must be certain that we can cull humanely. If we have to trap more badgers in order to cull them, let us do so.

Caroline Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Neil Parish: I had to wait all afternoon to speak, so I do not think that I will give way.
	We have tried for 30 years to control bovine TB In this country, and all that we have seen is increase after increase. We cannot go on doing this for ever, because in the end we will not have a viable cattle herd, and we will not have the food security that we all seek. We must get to grips with this disease.
	Finally, let me deal with the myth about what is and is not supposed to be happening in the Republic of Ireland. This is the point on which I really disagree with other Members. It is possible to argue that opossums may be slightly different from badgers in Ireland, but the differences between badgers in Ireland and badgers in Devon are very few. [Interruption.] I have listened throughout the afternoon to speeches from the Members who are interrupting, and I have remained very quiet. Perhaps the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) will now listen to what I have to say.
	Recent figures from Ireland show that TB infection levels have fallen by more than 45% since 2000. They are now slaughtering fewer than half the cattle they needed to some 10 years ago. This is a substantial reduction that the Irish Government believe their badger culling programme has significantly contributed to. The culling of badgers is the only significant difference between the current approaches taken in England and Ireland; the cattle restrictions and cattle movement orders are virtually the same. Last year 15,612 cattle tested positive in Ireland which represents a 15% reduction on the 2012 levels. The Irish Government have said TB eradication is now a practical proposition in Ireland after the latest figures show a substantial drop in reactor numbers in 2013.
	I now quote from the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine:
	“We believe that, while it is difficult to quantify the precise impact of badger culling on the reduction in the incidence of TB, much of the improvement in the TB situation is due to the badger removal programme.”
	Therefore the Irish believe culling badgers has worked to reduce TB in the Republic of Ireland.
	In a county such as the one I represent in Devon where over a quarter of the herds are restricted, where we are slaughtering 5,500 cattle a year and where probably
	about 40% of our badger population are infected with bovine TB, we have to take action not only in cleaning the cattle and having stricter cattle movements, but in making sure those badgers are clean so there is no TB in them If we do that, when we turn our cattle out, it will be safe to do so, and when we drink our milk it will be safe to do so. When our tourists come to Devon and Cornwall and the west country, they will come to see the beautiful herds of beef cattle, such as Devon reds grazing there, that are not infected by TB.

Andrew Stunell: Hazel Grove is in the northern part of Cheshire or the southern part of Greater Manchester, and Cheshire is on the frontier zone of the northern spread of bovine TB. We are officially an edge risk area. In Cheshire there were 143 outbreaks in 2013 and 829 animals were destroyed as a result. Based on DEFRA’s figures for the average costs, dealing with bovine TB in Cheshire therefore cost something over £4 million, and more than £1 million—more likely £1.5 million—of that cost fell on farmers. The House will therefore understand that I share a lot of the concerns that have been expressed by those representing agricultural areas, albeit mine is a suburban one, but of course I also get a very large number of e-mails and letters from those who are concerned about the culling of badgers.
	I want to focus on the efforts I believe it is right to put into preventing the spread of the disease northwards. I have asked the Minister questions about this and I am working with Cheshire Wildlife Trust and the Cheshire NFU on how we might do that. It is feasible to have a vaccinated zone across Cheshire that acts as a barrier to the spread of infected badgers to the north and hence causes a reduction in the transmission of the disease to cattle.
	At the end of last year I visited a badger vaccination project being carried out by Cheshire Wildlife Trust with the full support of the NFU, and with a 50% contribution to the cost by the Department, and I want to thank the Minister for the £250,000 fund that is in place for similar projects around the country. One of my questions to him will be whether he can do more on that front, because having a vaccinated zone in Cheshire is a pretty good guarantee of preventing the spread of the disease further north.
	I also want to thank the Minister for the support that the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, which is funded by the Department, is giving to the road-kill testing of badgers in Cheshire. That project is being run by the university of Liverpool, and I hope that it will provide us with more evidence on the prevalence of the disease among badgers, as well as assisting us in reducing that prevalence.
	I thank the Minister and his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), for the steps that they have taken to improve data sharing. One of the absurdities of the situation up to about 18 months ago was that data protection legislation was being used to prevent adjacent farmers from finding out about outbreaks. In Cheshire, where herds are frequently moved from one farm to another to exploit grazing opportunities, farmers were at risk of moving animals
	into an area adjacent to one in which infection had been detected. I am pleased to say that a little more data sharing is now in place, but I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that data transmission is now at an appropriate level. I am meeting representatives of Cheshire NFU tomorrow morning, and I expect them to tell me how it is on the ground, so he might want to make sure that he has got his story straight.
	I am very keen to ensure that we succeed in stopping the spread of bovine TB further north into Cheshire and beyond. That is why I very much encouraged the Cheshire Wildlife Trust and the NFU to work together on vaccination. I want to point out that vaccination is not quite as simple as we in the House sometimes make it sound. There is a narrow calendar window during which the badgers can be vaccinated. They spend the winter months in their setts and are inaccessible. There is a narrow period of time during the day, too, when vaccination can take place. It has to be early in the day and they have to be trapped as they come out overnight.
	The trapping is not simple: we do not want to catch rabbits or foxes; we want to catch badgers. The trap has to be laid in a particular way, and the bait has to be under a suitably heavy stone that neither rabbits nor foxes can move, but that badgers can, in order to shut the trap. I am impressed by the care and thought that goes into the capture of the animals, and by the professionalism that is needed to do it.
	The day I visited a farm in the south of Cheshire, eight or nine traps had been laid, and they yielded four badgers. One professional gentleman had spent a whole day setting the traps, vaccinating the animals, releasing them and clearing the traps, and he got just four badgers. It is slow, complicated work, and of course that process has to be repeated each year. I am not decrying the process; I am simply saying that there is not a solution to this problem that can be achieved by waving a magic wand.
	Will the Minister give the House an undertaking that those of us who live in edge risk areas—the frontier zones, as I call them—will have all the support that is needed for an intensive vaccination programme to prevent the spread of the disease northwards? Will he ensure that the data sharing relating to outbreaks is at a level that will really prevent the possibility of herds being unwittingly moved back into infected areas?
	I also want to raise a point that was put to me by the Cheshire Wildlife Trust. In carrying out the vaccination programme in south Cheshire, the trust discovered more or less the same thing that had been discovered in the culling areas—namely, that there did not seem to be as many badgers as people were expecting. Does the Minister think that the assessment of the density of the badger population, on which the whole culling exercise seems to have been based, is a realistic one? Is he satisfied that the calculations that spring from that assessment have been made on a sound basis? If, when we get to the capture of animals—or in the case of culling, the destruction of animals—the animals simply are not there, the whole calculation becomes different. For those of us in the edge zone—the high risk zone—the solution on offer is not culling but the creation of a cordon sanitaire. The problem is not easy to resolve anywhere, but we believe that there is a specific solution that will do exactly that, at least in our area, and I would like the support of the Minister in achieving it.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for choosing the debate and the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for introducing it—with great fortitude, I might add, and I commend her for that. I also thank the cross-party group of MPs who secured the debate, which is hugely significant and timely, because the Minister is considering wider roll-outs. We have seen cross-party support for a new way forward and a new consensus based on vaccination and cattle measures.
	I thank all Members who have spoken, even those whose opinions I respect but disagree with. There were many good contributions, including by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who has great experience, and the hon. Members for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams)—we go back a long way—for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I may not agree with many of the points that they made, but they spoke with passion for their constituents.
	Those who have spoken for the motion today and for a considered, cross-party and scientific consensus on the way forward include the hon. Member for St Albans, who made the point that this is not a case of one side against another; my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), for Copeland (Mr Reed), for Newport West (Paul Flynn), for Derby North (Chris Williamson), for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith); the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George), for Southend West (Mr Amess), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), for Torbay (Mr Sanders) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas); and the right hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and, lately, for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell). In every part of the Chamber, on every Bench, there have been calm, rational and methodical arguments on why we should have a different way forward.
	A number of questions face Ministers today. Why continue to pursue a policy of eradicating bovine TB in cattle involving mass culling of badgers? It proved hugely costly to taxpayers and farmers and was critically flawed, from the first principles, through the methodology to the application in the field. It failed to meet the Government’s own limited tests of effectiveness and humaneness. In short, not enough badgers were culled, and too many were not killed cleanly, but suffered before dying. Culls have diverted stretched police resources from front-line duties to deal with protesters and to ensure public safety, prompting police and crime commissioners to speak out in opposition. Culls are deeply unpopular with the public throughout the country, in town and country alike. Culls are scientifically controversial to the point of flying in the face of mainstream, expert advice, from which, as we have seen today, increasing numbers of Government MPs are making the right and intelligent choice to seek alternative, workable strategies for TB eradication.
	Why pursue such a policy when it is so clearly contested scientifically, so deeply flawed methodologically and so evidently failing, and when there are proven alternatives, which are more humane, more effective, cheaper and more publicly acceptable? Why do that when scientists, many farmers, MPs from all parties and Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition are willing to work with the Government on an alternative strategy that will be enduring and effective and garner widespread stakeholder and public support? In all sincerity, despite—in fact because of—those flawed and failed culls in Gloucester and Somerset, it is not too late for Ministers to think again and for us to work together on a better way forward.
	Before addressing what has gone wrong with the culls and what can now be done, let me make it clear that Labour agrees entirely and unequivocally that the scourge of bovine TB must be eradicated. It must be eradicated because of the terrible waste of productive cattle, the destruction of pedigree herds, the cash-flow and wider economic impacts on family farms, the psychological trauma for farmers and their families, and the unsustainable cost of compensation payments. Some have pointed out that many more tens of thousands of cattle are slaughtered each year for many other reasons—mastitis, lameness, old age, inability to calve and so on. That is true, but 1% of the total cattle herd, dairy and non-dairy, in the UK is slaughtered because of bovine TB, and that is unacceptable. What also distinguishes that from other reasons for slaughter is that it is a notifiable disease. We have a public and legal duty to bear down on it, and pressing trade reasons to do so, too. On that, we are at one with the Government.
	We support the UK and the Welsh Governments for their increasingly stringent efforts, working with farmers, to clamp down on the disease by use of cattle measures. As this is a disease in cattle, the primary resolution will be in cattle measures. Some Ministers give the impression that badgers are the main culprits, yet we know from exhaustive in-field studies that although there is some direct transmission of TB from infected badgers to cattle—it is about 6% of the total—and that that may indeed play a role in subsequent onward transmission, cattle-to-cattle transmission is the major element.
	We know also that the most significant spike in TB was linked to the rapid spread of the disease in the immediate aftermath of foot and mouth disease, when the restocking of cattle took place northwards and westwards, often from areas further south where TB was present. In addition, there have been sporadic occurrences in parts of the country and farms where there has been no history of TB, and we must note the presence of TB-free farms in the midst of hotspot areas. All that reinforces the scientific conclusion that stringent cattle measures are key to a successful strategy of eradication. Movement restrictions, risk-based trading, rigorous biosecurity and other measures will play the most substantial part in eradicating the disease.
	However, we also need fully to recognise the need to tackle reservoirs of the disease in wildlife, where appropriate. Our disagreement with the Government—it is a profound disagreement—is over the best means of addressing the wildlife reservoir. We believe, as do many farmers and leading scientific opinion, backed by mounting evidence of success, which has been set out before the Minister today, that there is another way to tackle badger TB which has greater certainty of success and avoids the significant risks of a mass-culling programme.
	Before I expand on an alternative approach, we have to examine what went wrong with the Government’s culls last year. There was a sequence of dire policy miscalculations, each of which compounded the other and led to wholesale failure. The crucial baseline population of badgers was first overestimated, then underestimated; a risky and wholly untested “free-shoot” approach was adopted, which promptly but predictably failed; more costly cage-trap-shoot methods were rapidly then introduced, yet still too few badgers were culled in the time frame allowed, posing an increased risk of spreading TB; the six-week time-frame was then controversially extended and, again, still too few badgers were killed; and, meanwhile, police patrolled the country trying to maintain order for deeply unpopular culls, and running up bills for the taxpayer.
	We now understand from a delayed but leaked Government report that too many badgers died inhumanely, enduring suffering before death. As an aside, I note that the British Veterinary Association, of which I am proud to be an honorary member, predicated its support on these culls being humane—watch this space.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Between 1998 and 2010, the number of herd breakdowns tripled from 1,226 to 3,334, and the number of cattle slaughtered rose sixfold, from 4,102 to 24,000. Given what I am hearing from the Labour Front-Bench team today, can our farmers, who are suffering so terribly from this disease, expect more of the same?

Huw Irranca-Davies: No, and I refer the hon. Gentleman, who makes a valid point, to the figures for the past three years, which have shown a downward trend.
	I say to the Minister that the two key tests for the Government of effectiveness and humaneness have been failed. So let us not keep inflicting this costly policy failure and public relations disaster on farmers, taxpayers and wildlife. Let us learn the lessons from these two failed and costly culls, stop them now and look at the alternative way forward, which can be cheaper, more humane and more effective.
	Look instead to Wales, where there has been a significant and substantial reduction in TB, at twice the rate of the decline in England. That happened without culling, but with vaccination and stringent cattle measures. Look to Northern Ireland, where BTB is declining faster, without culling, than in the Republic, where culling is taking place. Look closer to home, in England, where the incidence of BTB began to decline even before the culls started. We repeatedly pointed out that trend to Ministers, who either ignored or denied it. The trend is even more apparent now that Ministers have admitted that the figures incorrectly overstated BTB.
	More and more MPs from across the parties, including independent-minded Government MPs, are calling on Ministers to pause and think again. There is a different approach to tackling TB in cattle and wildlife, if only Ministers would listen to the evidence, and to the increasing numbers of MPs of their own party who have lost faith in these deeply flawed culls. We want the Government to work with the science and across political parties to seek a new, lasting consensus on the way forward. Labour, scientists, and many farmers want to do that,
	so I repeat the offer that I made to the Secretary of State in writing in December: work with us, with farmers, and with the evidence to agree a new, better way forward.

George Eustice: I begin by picking up on a point made by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick): this is an incredibly difficult disease to fight, and there are no easy answers in the war against TB. There are several reasons for that. First, it is a very slow-growing, insidious disease, which makes it incredibly difficult to detect. It has been hard to get a reliable means of diagnosis. Secondly, the disease lives within the cell wall of blood cells, and that makes it very difficult to get a vaccine to work. That is why the BCG vaccine, which is the only thing that we have, is only partially effective and provides no cure. That is why the Government have been very clear that we need to pursue a range of options to roll back the disease. We are clear that no one measure on its own will work; instead, we need to pursue a range of strategies to bear down on the disease. We set those out clearly in our draft TB eradication strategy, the final version of which will be published shortly. It sets out a range of options; I want to come back to that, because this is an area in which I think there will be consensus across the House.
	There is one area where, clearly, we take a different view from the Opposition. Our view is that nowhere in the world has managed successfully to tackle TB without also dealing with the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. A couple of hon. Members have attempted to cast doubt on that—they have mentioned possums in New Zealand and asked whether the case is the same—but in Ireland and France, cull strategies have been successfully pursued.

Caroline Lucas: rose—

George Eustice: I will not give way. I want to carry on and make this point, because there were lots of issues raised. If Members do not accept that international comparisons are relevant, I say: look at the historical comparisons. We got on top of TB in the 1960s and ’70s by pursuing a badger cull strategy. Early attempts through measures such as the clean ring strategy pursued by Dunnet in the late ’80s had some success. The RBCTs that the previous Government ran also showed a 16% reduction in the disease.
	I want to say a little about vaccination, because we recognise that it can provide some benefits. It can pass on some immunity to cubs, and can cause less disturbance to the badger population, but there are difficulties with it. The badgers have to be successfully trapped and vaccinated; St Ives—the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has talked to me about this—has managed to catch only seven in the past year. We should recognise that no vaccine is 100% effective; the evidence is that it is roughly 60% effective.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister give way?

George Eustice: No, I will not; I will keep going.

Bill Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As DEFRA has not released its report, it would be demeaning to the House to have a Division on this issue. Is it your view that Mr Speaker’s ruling should be maintained—that is, that if a Member shouts, he should vote in the way that he shouts?

Lindsay Hoyle: You know very well, as I do, that if a Member shouts one way, they should not vote the other way, but they could abstain.

George Eustice: I want to say a little about what we have done to progress an oral vaccine. We are spending £1.6 million a year—

Andrew George: The Minister referred to the trials that were about to commence in the Penwith area with the support of DEFRA, which is providing the vaccine ampoules, which is much appreciated. He said it was only seven. It was only a small trial of the methodology, not of the numbers.

George Eustice: I expect my hon. Friend will do better next year.
	As I said, we are spending £1.6 million a year developing an oral vaccine. We have made some progress on the dose required for that vaccine, and it is around 10 times more than would be needed for an injectable vaccine. We have also made some progress towards identifying a bait that would be successful, and we have made some progress towards linking the vaccine to fats that can help get it through the digestive system. But there are drawbacks even to an oral vaccine. Not all badgers will take it, and some badgers may eat more of it than others, so it will never be 100%. But we accept that nothing in this challenge is 100% and that is why we are pursuing it.
	On injectable vaccines, I have had representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) to look again at whether we could refocus some of our vaccination efforts, either in the edge area, as the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) suggested, or around the east Sussex area. I have said that we will look closely at that. As several hon. Members have pointed out, we are doing some work in that area now, and we would be willing to develop that further.
	On cattle vaccines, the Secretary of State met the commissioner on this just last week. We are continuing to do some work to develop a DIVA test. Field trials will take three to five years, so as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, it will be eight or nine years before we can get export clearance for the use of such a cattle vaccine. However, we are committed to taking this forward.
	I agree with hon. Members that improving the control of cattle movements is an important tool in the fight against TB, but I simply point out that we have done a lot already. We now have annual testing in the high-risk area, and four-yearly testing across the whole country. We have banned practices such as approved quarantine units. We now have radial testing in the low-risk areas where we get an outbreak. We have stopped cattle going to major shows since July 2012. We have introduced risk-based trading to help farmers manage the risks. We have an ongoing consultation about restricting movements
	and introducing pre-movement and post-movement tests to common land. We are introducing deductions for farmers who are late in having their TB test, and we have reduced the pre-movement testing window from 60 to 30 days. So we are doing a huge amount, but I accept that we should be constantly looking to improve and do more, and we are looking, as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) suggested, at whether more could be done, for instance, on biosecurity measures.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister give way?

George Eustice: I am going to run out of time and I want to leave time for the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main).
	On effectiveness, we have already published the numbers of badgers that were culled in both Somerset, where it was 940, and Gloucester, where it was 921. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) invited me to speculate on what the effect on the population might have been from the recent flooding. One lesson that we have learnt is that it is difficult precisely to estimate badger populations. The RBCT did not use head trapping of the sophistication that we did, rather it used things like sett surveys, and there is a huge amount of doubt about whether it had a clear understanding of the badger population.
	A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) have highlighted that the RBCT concluded that the aim should be to remove 70% of the badger population. We accept that and that is why we had that as a target. However, it is wrong to say that if that target is not hit in the first year, the disease will be made worse. The RBCT clearly showed that three of the 10 test areas where there was a proactive cull got between 30% and 40% in year one, but provided that was sustained in subsequent years, it went on to have a significant impact in reducing the disease.
	Finally, on the humaneness issue, I know that this is a sentimental matter for many people. In fact, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) highlighted the poem “The Badger”. All I will say is that I hope that hon. Members can develop some perspective, because shooting is used as a means of controlling foxes and all sorts of other wildlife. If hon. Members were to go to Bushy park or Richmond park in September and October, they would find signs up saying that a cull of deer was going on and so the park was closed. No one would bat an eyelid. I hope that we can develop some perspective—

Caroline Lucas: rose—

George Eustice: I am not going to give way, but I know what the hon. Lady is going to say.
	We recognise that there are challenges with shooting badgers. That is why we issued best practice guidance that specified a range of less than 70 metres using a rifle, that they should target the chest, the type of rifle that could be used and that the animal must be stationary and over a bait point. It might be that lessons can be learnt from that to improve the proficiency of marksmen and we can obviously consider that.
	I want to pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) about monitoring. He said that it was insufficient and we do not accept that. We were required to monitor 60 of the culls but
	monitored 88 and we were required to carry out 120 post-mortems but carried out 150. We did more monitoring than was required.
	As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, this is a devastating disease having a devastating impact on cattle farmers. When I visited one of the Gloucester culls I met a Gloucestershire farmer who had been under restriction for 12 years. He was not moving cattle on or off; it was being caused not by cattle but by a large badger sett on his farm that was infected by TB. I saw another farmer who had lost an entire pedigree herd as a result of the disease. We know that if we do nothing it will cost us £1 billion over the next 10 years and, as I said at the start, although we are pursuing a range of options, no single measure on its own is the solution to the problem. There is no example anywhere in the world of a country that has successfully tackled TB without also tackling the reservoir of disease in the wildlife population.

Anne Main: I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their compassionate remarks in this important debate. Although I have not been in the Chamber for all of it, I have watched it all and I recognise the passion on both sides.
	I stress again that the debate is not about one side against another. It is about whether we are pursuing the right strategy. I would like the House to express its wish today, but I recognise that the motion does not bind the Minister. Whatever the result of the vote today, if there is a vote, I hope that the Minister will take the issue away and reflect on it, read the report and come back before the House with a statement and a votable motion of his own. I recognise that, without that, we will get no further on this difficult subject, which gives rise to a lot of passion but on which we should not just be being seen to be doing something. I thank all hon. Members for taking the time to come here on a Thursday for this important debate.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 219, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House believes that the pilot badger culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset have decisively failed against the criteria set out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in guidance to Natural England for licensing of the culls, which stipulated that 70 per cent of the badger population should be culled within a six-week period; notes that the costs of policing, additional implementation and monitoring, and the resort to more expensive cage-and-trap methods over an extended period have substantially increased the cost of the culls, and strengthened the financial case for vaccination; regrets that the decision to extend the original culls has not been subject to any debate or vote in Parliament; further regrets that the Independent Expert Panel will only assess the humaneness, safety and effectiveness of the original six-week period and not the extended cull period; and urges the Government to halt the existing culls and granting of any further licences, pending development of alternative strategies to eradicate bovine TB and promote a healthy badger population.

Huw Irranca-Davies: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Parliament has today expressed a very clear view that the mass culling of badgers is not appropriate as part of a bovine TB eradication strategy. I also learnt today, from a response to my named day question, that the Secretary of State has now received, and is now considering, the delayed independent expert report, which will likely condemn the culls as ineffective and inhumane. May I therefore ask the Minister, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to confirm that a full debate and vote in Government time will now take place before any decision to proceed with an existing or new cull takes place?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a matter for me, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, but I am sure that his point will have been heard. [Interruption.] If the Minister wishes to respond, I am happy for him to do so.

George Eustice: I will respond, Mr Deputy Speaker, because obviously the shadow Minister has an issue with the fact that we have received the report. We have indeed received it, and we are considering it. It was not our decision when the report was delivered to us; an independent expert panel decided that. It was not our decision to have this debate, nor did we get involved in the decision of the Backbench Business Committee to have the debate today, and nor is it the role of Labour Members to dictate when the Government should publish the report. Let me be very clear: we have always been clear that we will publish the report and then, when we have made a decision—we have not made any decisions yet—[Interruption.] No, I am not going to confirm that there will be a vote. I have discussed and debated this many times, and I am sure we will have many opportunities to do so again in the future.

Anne McIntosh: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have had a very well-mannered, even-handed and good-tempered debate, and I regret that we have had what the record may prove to be a vote on very erroneous grounds indeed. I would like to refer to this point of order when we have the record of the vote.

Lindsay Hoyle: I will be quite honest: I do not treat what you have said as a point of order. There is no record of the vote as yet, and we will have to wait and see.

Angela Eagle: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is now the second time the House has debated this issue on a Back-Bench motion, with overwhelming votes to stop the cull. What good is it having debates in Parliament if the Government are wilfully staying out of the Lobby, not involving themselves in voting for the policy that they are pursuing in the country, and taking no notice whatsoever of votes of this House. Is not this making this House an irrelevance?

Lindsay Hoyle: I can understand that frustration is being shown at this time, but I am not in a position to offer any more advice.

Paul Flynn: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that this debate was followed by many thousands of people throughout the country who have shown great interest in it through their tweets and responses. Will they not regard it as an outrage when there is a vote of 219 to one and the Government decide to ignore it? Are they out to prove themselves to be the really nasty party?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is also not a point of order. It is a matter for the Government when and if they wish to have a vote.

PUBLIC BODIES (DIVERSITY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(John Penrose.)

Seema Malhotra: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this topic, which is a key issue not just for equality but for ensuring the best decision making possible for our public services—an area in which I worked in 2009. Civic engagement and the opportunity to play a part in public life are vital for building and sustaining links between all parts of society and our public institutions.
	It is nearly 40 years since the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 were first passed into law to end discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender in Britain. Since then, notable milestones have been achieved. We have had the first woman Prime Minister, the first black woman in the Cabinet, and the first Asian and Muslim to attend Cabinet in the shape of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan).
	However, we have not seen commensurate attainment in the public sector as a whole. The most recent “Public Bodies” report published in June 2013 by the Cabinet Office shows a worrying trend of reversal in progress. We all agree that public appointments must be made on merit; the question is whether the processes we have in place are really delivering that. Last year, 1,087 appointments were made to the boards of bodies in the UK, but of those only 56 were ethnic minority individuals. In just one year, black and minority ethnic representation went down from 7.2% in 2011-12 to 5.5% in 2012-13—the lowest level in more than a decade. It is positive that the number of female appointments went up from 33.9% to 35.6% in the same period, but diversity strategies must go wider than gender.
	The drop is of particular concern because diversity on public boards has been seemingly high on the agenda for the Government Equalities Office, the Cabinet Office and the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The 2011 review of the public appointments system addressed the core principles of fairness, openness and merit, and the Public Appointments Order in Council 2013 refers to a duty for the commissioner to promote equality of opportunity and diversity in public appointments. When the commissioner published the diversity strategy last March it was acknowledged that, although progress had been made, the pace of change was too slow.

Keith Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on being the first ethnic minority woman to represent a seat in west London. This issue has arisen under successive Governments and it has been a real cause of concern over a number of years. Does my hon. Friend think that perhaps the problem is that, when Ministers handed over to an independent body the decision to make these appointments, the politics went out of the appointment system, and that those who currently sit on the appointments board are not as attuned to these issues as Ministers would have been?

Seema Malhotra: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. There is a separate debate to be had about the effectiveness of creating of an independent
	body. Ministers, however, can still take responsibility and I will come on to discuss how the previous Government had targets for public appointments, which I think made a big and important difference at the very highest levels of every Department.
	As I was saying, it was acknowledged last year that the pace of change was too slow, yet a year on it is slower still. Last year, the inclusion think tank Diversity UK, led by Dilip Joshi, Lopa Patel and Sushila Khoot—long-standing campaigners for equality of opportunity—undertook a survey to investigate what was happening behind the statistics and launched the findings at an event that I attended and at which there was cross-party representation.
	The survey collected the views of ethnic minority individuals and found that the majority of respondents had not applied for a public appointment despite being aware of such appointments and despite 60% of them expressing a wish to apply in the future. When people were asked why they had not applied, their reasons were varied. They did not feel that they were qualified enough or that they had the right skills, which are common responses to surveys looking at people who are under-represented in different organisations and bodies. Other reasons cited for detracting 68% of respondents from applying for a public appointment included the requirement for sector-specific and previous board-level experience and—this is a very important point—little or no feedback from the process and a lack of cultural awareness from executive recruitment consultants. However, respondents also saw the positive opportunity that public appointments can provide with regard to benefiting society and playing a part in our community and national life.
	The survey was circulated to approximately 1,500 senior- director level individuals, and the findings suggest a widening “aspiration gap” between the leaders in business and society and the leaders of our public institutions.
	In 2003, Trevor Phillips, the then head of the Commission for Racial Equality, coined the phrase “snowy peaks syndrome” to help explain a phenomenon in the civil service. He said we should think of Whitehall as a mountain range: at the base of each mountain, we might find large numbers of women and ethnic minorities, whereas at the summit we will find a small amount of white, middle class men.
	Today, more than a decade later, snowy peaks can still be found in many parts of our society, including the public sector. We see it in the NHS, where only 1% of chief executives are from BME groups even though BMEs make up more than 15% of the health service work force.
	The Government have done some important work on improving the representation of women on boards in the private sector, but diversity, as I have said, goes wider than gender, and the public sector remains vital, too. Fourteen per cent. of the UK population is made up of ethnic minority individuals and it is time that the Government demonstrated greater leadership on the issue.
	Just last month, new research on the corporate sector revealed the widening aspiration gap, with two thirds of FTSE 100 companies still having an all-white executive leadership. Only 10 ethnic minority individuals hold the post of chairman, chief executive or finance director, which is equivalent to 3.5% of roles at that level. A diversity deficit clearly exists in the corporate sector,
	as it does in the public sector. That deficit also contributes to the lack of growth in developing economies across the world, where our diaspora communities and diversity at board level make a huge difference in building relationships.
	The disappointment is that we are still discussing this issue today, when we would have hoped that many of the barriers to the progress of ethnic minority individuals in Britain had been removed. What are the solutions? Lopa Patel of Diversity UK has stated:
	“To have declining BME representation at senior levels in the corporate and public sector at a time when BME numbers are increasing in the general population is indicative of failings in the process.”
	I agree with the sentiment that the Government must do more to identify and remove what might be institutional discrimination.
	It is precisely because of the need to address both demand and supply side issues in the appointments process that the previous Labour Government brought in important reforms and set targets for 50% of new appointments to be women by 2015, and for appointments of BME people and those with disabilities to be in line with their representation in the population. The targets may have been ambitious, but they made a statement and gave a sense of urgency about the need for reform.

Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only has the number of people in the BME population gone up, but their level of education and their role among the professions are unrecognisable from when I was a child, which makes it even worse that the number of such people at senior levels is dropping?

Seema Malhotra: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It goes back to the heart of the issue, which is that, as we all believe, appointments should be made on merit. It is about whether there is a gap between those with the talent, expertise and desire to be able to reach those appointments and their actually achieving that through the appointments process. The very heart of the issue is whether our system and processes are fair and bring in talent fairly in the way that we need.
	Since this Government came to power, targets for those with disabilities or those from ethnic minorities have been removed. The gender target has been kept in the Cabinet Office diversity strategy, but it is now described as an aspiration.
	Diversity UK sent its survey findings to all major Departments and requested meetings with Ministers to discuss the issues, but the response was mixed. Imagine its surprise at receiving rejection letter after rejection letter, with Ministers citing lack of time as the reason for not agreeing to meetings. The Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Cabinet Office welcomed meetings to discuss the findings, but meetings were declined by, among others, the Prime Minister’s office, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Treasury, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Department for Education. Increasing representation is a complex issue, with no easy answers, but one thing is clear: it requires leadership from the top, particularly
	to give candidates the confidence to put themselves forward and the belief that it is worth the time and effort to do so.
	May I ask the Minister to answer the following questions? Will he confirm which diversity targets for new public appointments are in place, and whether they are for increasing representation by gender, ethnicity and disability? What guidance is given to Departments on their recruitment processes, and on how to increase the diversity of suitable candidates at the application stage? What reviews are being undertaken of how effectively Departments recruit, and what powers does OCPA have to challenge those that do not perform well? What message is given to the head-hunters or search agencies selected to assist in recruitment, and to what extent is producing a more diverse range of suitable candidates stipulated in any contract? How are permanent secretaries held to account for their progress on diversity in public appointments? Are public appointment opportunities promoted at every level in our communities in order to reach a more diverse segment of the British public?
	Finally, does he think that public bodies are using executive recruitment agencies effectively, and do those agencies have more knowledge of BME communities and how to reach them than public bodies and Departments have through their networks?
	The Diversity UK report showed that respondents simply want a level playing field and a strong referee on this issue. The survey supported the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and its independent assessors in providing those tools.
	Our country is admired the world over for its openness, its sense of liberty and the opportunity that it offers all people. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to hearing how he sees us achieving greater diversity in public appointments, which is vital in ensuring that we deliver the public services that all parts of our communities need and in providing a greater sense of opportunity for all the British public.

Nick Hurd: This issue is very important. I congratulate the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) on bringing it forward for debate today. She is well supported by her colleagues and has a credible track record of interest in this matter. Her well-informed speech has raised a number of interesting points.
	I agreed 100% with the hon. Lady’s opening statement that this issue is not just about equality. As she knows well from her background in the private sector, businesses that reflect their customers are much better able to understand their needs and can offer them better services as a result. The same must be true of the public sector. There are about 8,500 people on the boards of our public bodies, which range from large public bodies to small advisory committees. All human life is here, from those who monitor the well-being of prisoners to those who govern great national museums. Board members exert significant influence over our lives. They deal with issues that affect a lot of people and shape the public services that we use.
	Public services are there to serve the public—the clue is in the name. They can do that only if they understand the needs and priorities of those they serve and those
	they lead. The hon. Lady’s point about the NHS was a valid one. It leads to the obvious question of how on earth they can serve the public effectively if they fail adequately to represent the population. That has been a long-standing challenge, as she recognises. I will try to address her points and to set out that, although we are not where we need to be, we are making some progress.
	I agree with the hon. Lady totally that it is extremely disappointing that the figures show a recent decrease in the representation of people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. I hope that the work that the Government have done recently to encourage diversity in public appointments, which I shall explain, will reap the rewards and be reflected in the next set of published figures. However, I share her disappointment on this important matter.
	As the hon. Lady suggested, it looks like the Government are making progress on the representation of women on public boards, after years of stagnation. Our challenging aspiration that 50% of new appointments to public bodies should be women is proof of how seriously we take the issue. In the last financial year, only 37% of public board members were women. However, we have seen a positive improvement. In the first six months of this financial year—from April 2013 to September 2013—the figure was 45%. The Government continue to focus on this issue by reaching out to talented women and making it clear that a range of fascinating roles are on offer, and by ensuring that those roles are as accessible as possible to all. I will go into more detail on that.
	The hon. Lady did not mention disability, but would like to say a little about it. The Government’s general approach is that the public appointments process should be open to all, regardless of who they are, and should be designed in a way that ensures that we get the best applicants. For the record, the picture is encouraging. Last year, 5.3% of the appointments and reappointments in which the disability status was known were made to candidates with disabilities. That is part of a consistent upward trend, which I hope she will welcome.
	I will make some general points about the Government’s approach before moving on to the specifics. The Government have taken unprecedented steps to open up the public appointments process to new talent. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has placed this matter at the top of the Government’s agenda, as the hon. Lady acknowledged, and rightly challenges all Departments and public bodies to ensure that their boards have the mix of skills and experience that will make them as effective as possible. The presumption against automatic reappointment of incumbents supports that. We have made the process more transparent to improve access to vacancies. Alongside this, we have placed a new emphasis on ability and skills, rather than prior experience, to ensure that key roles in public bodies are open to the widest field, instead of a narrow merry-go-round of the same old candidates that has been a feature of the system to date.

Seema Malhotra: Will the Minister confirm that there is a way for permanent secretaries to be held to account for their progress? Do they need to report progress, and is that part of any performance review process?

Nick Hurd: The system is independently regulated and I will come on to that. There is more transparency in the process and that is an issue my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has placed at the top of the Government’s agenda. My experience is that this is more actively monitored and more transparent than it has been in the past.
	There was a debate on whether the process benefits from independent regulation, overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I think it does. It is key in supporting the merit principle, rather than other factors that might determine appointments. All panels have an independent member, who for chair appointments will be nominated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. That is a welcome initiative. The Centre for Public Appointments, which is part of the Cabinet Office, is working across Whitehall, and with the executive search industry, to make practical steps that will help us to open up public appointments to the widest possible pool. I will provide three examples.
	First, we are modernising the recruitment process to ensure that adverts are effective and non-exclusive, and that interview panels are diverse and reappointments are made only in cases of utmost necessity. No one seriously disagrees that appointments should not be made on the basis of merit, but talented people often do not apply for public appointments either because they do not know about them, or because they do not recognise what they have to offer. We are placing greater emphasis on ability rather than experience, because we do not want to exclude those who may not yet have acquired board experience but could nevertheless potentially be good board members.
	Secondly, there is nothing more off-putting than an unnecessarily long application process, so Departments are increasingly switching to using a straightforward CV and covering letter. We are working to simplify job adverts and are cutting out jargon to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.
	Thirdly, we are maximising the use of online and targeted advertising, and social media. Two years ago, the CPA did not even have a website, let alone a Twitter account. Now the former has more than 20,000 visits a month and the latter has 1,600 followers. These are sensible measures and independent regulation is important.
	On the representation of women and BME communities, progress has been made, particularly in relation to women. The rise of women in the public sector during the 20th-century was agonisingly slow. We should not forget that until 1947, women in the civil service were still expected to resign when they married. They earned less than men into the 1950s. Indeed, when Dame Mary Smieton was appointed as permanent undersecretary at the Department for Education in 1953—only the second woman to reach this grade—she was paid the same as a man. It would be nice to think that that was because her Department was an early advocate of equal pay—it was not—but the Treasury had not worked out a women’s rate of pay at that grade because it did not think that it would ever need to. This is where we have come from. Thankfully, much has changed and continues to improve, both in the civil service, where 47% of employees are currently women, and across the wider public sector, where women continue to shatter glass ceilings. For example, the RAF has recently appointed its second female Air Vice-Marshal.
	Significant areas for improvement remain. As the hon. Lady acknowledged, perhaps foremost among them is the number of women on public sector boards. Women remaining a minority in the boardroom—or worse, where all-male boards persist—becomes more and more of an anachronism every year that passes. In the last financial year, only 37% of public board members were women. I believe that transparency is one of the best ways to raise performance. This was the first year that the Government published their own statistics on the general diversity of appointments, something I hope the hon. Lady welcomes.

Diane Abbott: The Minister is of course the second generation of Hurd to serve in this House, but we know he is there on merit alone and we all believe in merit. However, does he not believe that, in 21st-century Britain, it is very important for public boards and the top of the public sector to look like Britain?

Nick Hurd: I hesitate to correct the hon. Lady, because the correction will not help my case, but I am actually the fourth successive generation of my family to serve in the House. However, I am increasingly, and thankfully, an anachronism. The hon. Lady’s point is entirely valid.
	The issue of transparency is particularly important. The message that I am trying to convey to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, and to other Members, is that we are making some progress. In the first six months of the current financial year, the number of women on boards rose to 45%. That constitutes real progress.

Seema Malhotra: I can inform the House that I am the first generation of my family to enter politics in my family.
	May I ask the Minister to return to the specific point about aspirations and targets? The last Government had targets relating to gender, ethnicity and disability for new appointments, whereas under the present Government only gender seems to remain, albeit as an aspiration. Was there a reason for the removal of the other two targets? Can the Minister shed any light on that?

Nick Hurd: I sincerely hope that the hon. Lady will not be the last generation of her family in this place. I would not wish her to carry the burden that I carry.
	As the hon. Lady probably knows, the present Administration are not particularly keen on targets. I shall provide a more detailed response to her question at a later stage, but I will say in response to what she said about the aspiration relating to women that I think that aspiration is fine as long as progress is made towards the aim of the aspiration, which is what I have argued that we are doing. I hope that the hon. Lady welcomes that. We are certainly not resting on our laurels. The public sector is doing better than the private sector, but I do not think that anyone considers the current figures to be satisfactory. We maintain our aspiration that 50% of new public appointees should be women, and we will continue to publish the figures every six months. We want them to continue to rise. Transparency is a new element. As we know, it is a great driver of behaviour and keeps people’s feet to the fire.

Julie Hilling: Does the Minister agree that one of the things that targets, and indeed aspirations, do is make people take action to meet them? Advertising in certain places often is not enough. This is about actively training people, educating people, and seeking people to fill those roles, rather than passively waiting for them to come forward.

Nick Hurd: I have some sympathy with that view, but I would not underestimate the strength of the new dynamics that we have introduced. There is a clear message from the top that this matters, and there is independent regulation of the competitive process. I have already described some of the things that we have done which we think will make it easier to reach out to people, and to remove barriers and obstacles. We have also made the process more transparent. In my experience as a Minister, the transparency factor is much more powerful than some arbitrary target with no transparency in regard to progress towards it The system knows that this matters and that it is being scrutinised—debates such as this are helpful in that respect—and we will be judged against progress towards the number for which we are aiming, whether it is set as an aspiration or a target.
	I do not want to ignore the important issue of BME representation. I will be frank, and say that we are disappointed by the slip-back in the numbers. In their public appointments diversity strategy, published this year, the Government said:
	“This is not just about gender; diversity is about encouraging applications from candidates with the widest range of backgrounds.”
	It is regrettable that last year the number of successful BME candidates fell from an average of about 7.9% of appointments and reappointments since 2001-02 to 5.5% last year. We are disappointed about that, because it matters to us. We are hopeful that this will prove to be an anomalous year, and that the work that the Cabinet Office and the Commissioner for Public Appointments have been doing to increase diversity in public appointments will reap rewards in the next set of published figures, which will be transparent and will be monitored by the House and outside.
	The Commissioner for Public Appointments regulates the competition for many of these posts. He also has a statutory responsibility to promote diversity and equality of opportunity in the procedures for making public appointments. He is actively concerned about the issues that have been raised today and he has already engaged in activity to try to improve the position. For example, he has run a series of workshops for different under-represented groups to identify the challenges to increasing diversity in appointments and will be coming up with practical suggestions to help Departments break down these barriers in the future. I am looking forward to the outcomes of this work and undertake to share them, as far as I can, with the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, knowing and respecting, as I do, her strong interest in this area.
	The public sector needs world-class leadership if it is to continue delivering the services that people rely on, and that means having diversity on the boards of public bodies—people with clarity of vision, who can make decisions, and rise above process to get things done. It needs innovators and people who understand the communities we are trying to serve. It needs people who
	can open up the system to new ways of doing things, who are prepared to take risks without being reckless, and who are willing to take responsibility and to learn and grow.
	I do not think there has ever been a time in the public sector when this need to open up the doors to fresh thinking and people who bring different perspectives and insights and different knowledge has been more
	important. There are already great examples of diverse leaders making a significant contribution on public boards, but we are very aware that there is much more we can do and that is why diversity is genuinely at the heart of our public appointments strategy.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.